Thanks. May I suggest one way to limit minutes and SMS is to get a
Google Voice number? I have had one for three years running, free, and
it has worked very well. Free SMS, free incoming and outgoing control,
voicemail transcriptions, etc......
On 3/27/2011 11:53 PM, Justin wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote on [Sun, 27 Mar 2011 21:30:24 -0400]:
>> On 3/27/2011 3:13 PM, Justin wrote:
>>> Paul Miner wrote on [Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:57:35 -0500]:
>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 11:01:46 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"<x@y.Invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>> As for going cell phone only, I often wonder if I am the only one that
>>> has to sit on hold for hours at a time to my ISP trying to resolve
>>> outages, costing me minutes if I were using a cell phone as VOIP is out
>>
>> Who is your ISP? Do you have only ONE provider available? I'm using
>> broadband cable, cable TV without the TV, but I could get similar
>> service from the telephone company.
>
> Comcast, the only other choice is AT&T at much slower rates and higher
> prices.
>
I also use Comcast. I've been using them for several years now.
Customer service can be dog slow but I've only needed to talk to them
about a problem ONCE in the last eight or ten years.
Per Paul Miner:
>You're missing a small step. If you're using the same phones for both
>services, in order to switch you'll need to disconnect the VoIP
>gateway and reconnect the POTS line. You can't have both connected at
>the same time.
Two options have tested ok for me:
- Unplug the VOIP gateway's power supply, which causes the
box to effectively patch the home phone system's line directly
to POTS
- Bypass the box completely by manually patching the home
phone system to POTS.
I test by dialing "611" which, in our area, connects to a
convenient recording telling people "that function isn't
available anymore"...
--
PeteCresswell
Richard B. Gilbert wrote on [Mon, 28 Mar 2011 07:57:25 -0400]:
> On 3/27/2011 11:53 PM, Justin wrote:
>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote on [Sun, 27 Mar 2011 21:30:24 -0400]:
>>> On 3/27/2011 3:13 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>> Paul Miner wrote on [Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:57:35 -0500]:
>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 11:01:46 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)"<x@y.Invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> As for going cell phone only, I often wonder if I am the only one that
>>>> has to sit on hold for hours at a time to my ISP trying to resolve
>>>> outages, costing me minutes if I were using a cell phone as VOIP is out
>>>
>>> Who is your ISP? Do you have only ONE provider available? I'm using
>>> broadband cable, cable TV without the TV, but I could get similar
>>> service from the telephone company.
>>
>> Comcast, the only other choice is AT&T at much slower rates and higher
>> prices.
>>
>
> I also use Comcast. I've been using them for several years now.
> Customer service can be dog slow but I've only needed to talk to them
> about a problem ONCE in the last eight or ten years.
I have had them out to the house several times this year already.
Some tech had used non weather-proof connections when they ran a new
line out last year, we have mulitple HD channels that break up and
run choppily. The modem was losing sync for hours at a time until
they replaced the fittings with weather proofed ones.
Whenever I call about a billing question, which I have had to do monthly
for the last 6 months it takes 20 minutes of being on hold, after I reach
someone and then they tell me they don't know the answer and have to call
me back, then I never get that call back... etc.
In article <ek8so69ga0ksii9p394prkmh0juve196rk@4ax.com>, Paul Miner
says...
> The VoIP service isn't suitable for incoming and 911? I dumped my POTS
> line and switched to Vonage in 2005. Both incoming calls and 911 work
> fine here.
In many cases, 911 calls suck on cell phones too.
I've only ever had to make two 911 calls from cell phones.
The one was from a Verizon phone, in Lake County, Ohio. That went right
through, as that particular 911 facility was properly set up.
The other one was from a T-Mobile phone, but it was out here, and the
regional 911 call center obviously didn't get my location from the cell
network; I had to specifically tell them to transfer me to the county
sherriff, and I had to tell the dispatcher where I was.
Knowing how things run out here, I'm guessing the problem was more
likely to be on the call center's side, rather than T-Mobile's.
On 3/28/2011 11:13 AM, Steve Sobol wrote:
> In article<ek8so69ga0ksii9p394prkmh0juve196rk@4ax.com >, Paul Miner
> says...
>
>> The VoIP service isn't suitable for incoming and 911? I dumped my POTS
>> line and switched to Vonage in 2005. Both incoming calls and 911 work
>> fine here.
>
> In many cases, 911 calls suck on cell phones too.
>
> I've only ever had to make two 911 calls from cell phones.
>
> The one was from a Verizon phone, in Lake County, Ohio. That went right
> through, as that particular 911 facility was properly set up.
>
> The other one was from a T-Mobile phone, but it was out here, and the
> regional 911 call center obviously didn't get my location from the cell
> network; I had to specifically tell them to transfer me to the county
> sherriff, and I had to tell the dispatcher where I was.
>
> Knowing how things run out here, I'm guessing the problem was more
> likely to be on the call center's side, rather than T-Mobile's.
>
>
A lot of that is simply because the state governments used the mandatory
e911 tax money as if it were manna and spent it on other stuff. They
didn't actually use the e911 tax money for its intended purpose in our
area until last when they upgraded the local 911 center to properly
display calls from cell phones
On 3/20/2011 1:25 PM, Steve Sobol wrote:
> Newsgroups expanded to include ATT, Sprint and Verizon. This is big news
> for everyone.
I saw someone from AT&T interviewed on CNN defending the acquisition as
being good for competition. His convoluted argument was based on how
data rates have come down in the past few years, claiming that earlier
consolidations were responsible for the decline in the cost per MB.
He also let slip something that I think T-Mobile might not be too happy
about should the deal not go through. He said that in many metropolitan
areas, including San Francisco and Miami, that T-Mobile was not even the
4th place carrier, but was 5th, behind MetroPCS. This is the first time
I had ever heard a carrier publicly admit market share in a particular
area. While MetroPCS used to be able to be written off as an extremely
niche player, now they have filled in the significant gaps in their
network by allowing extra-cost roaming onto Verizon. Contrast that with
T-Mobile which has no extra-cost roaming onto AT&T, and which has zero
coverage in many rural parts of metro areas.
While I'm not in favor of the reduced competition of the merger, the
reality is that T-Mobile U.S.A. can't continue down the path they've
been going forever. Neither Sprint nor Verizon need T-Mobile (for
different reasons) and AT&T would benefit from the acquisition (which is
why Sprint and Verizon oppose it).
Re: "limited" wireline service, was: T-Mobile selling off to AT&T
On 3/27/2011 6:11 PM, danny burstein wrote:
> In _some_ areas of the country, with _some_ telco facilities,
> the phone may still have dialtone but will be restricted
> to just calling "911" and possibly the business office.
In California, AT&T's $59.6 million in political donations paid off with
the signing of a bill eliminating the requirement for warm line service.
Of course they could offer warm line service for a small fee, but they
would risk massive numbers of landline subscribers switching to warm
line service.
In article <4d944401$0$10603$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...
> I saw someone from AT&T interviewed on CNN defending the acquisition as
> being good for competition. His convoluted argument was based on how
> data rates have come down in the past few years, claiming that earlier
> consolidations were responsible for the decline in the cost per MB.
Which, to anyone who's taken Econ 101, is an idiotic, completely
dishonest argument.
> While I'm not in favor of the reduced competition of the merger, the
> reality is that T-Mobile U.S.A. can't continue down the path they've
> been going forever. Neither Sprint nor Verizon need T-Mobile (for
> different reasons) and AT&T would benefit from the acquisition (which is
> why Sprint and Verizon oppose it).
Well, that's because T-Mobile doesn't seem to want to spend money on
their network. This is DT's fault, as DT is the parent company and is
writing the checks.
I'm getting increasingly pissed off that while my voice coverage is
great, there is a large area west of town that is still EDGE-only, and
in the HSPA areas, I can't get decent connections sometimes, and HSPA+
is nowhere to be found in the Victor Valley. I'm fine in Los Angeles and
San Diego, but I *live* *here.*
> Well, that's because T-Mobile doesn't seem to want to spend money on
> their network. This is DT's fault, as DT is the parent company and is
> writing the checks.
DT just doesn't see the point, it's not a question of fault. They want
to _make_ money on T-Mobile. They don't see a positive ROI by investing
more money. And they're probably right. To compete effectively in terms
of coverage with AT&T or Verizon is economically impossible for T-Mobile
or Sprint. The time and expense of adding enough 1900 MHz towers to
cover the same area that Verizon and AT&T cover with mostly 800 MHz
service makes it unwise to even try to compete based on coverage.
T-Mobile has almost no high value corporate customers, all of the
corporate customers are on AT&T and Verizon (with a few Nextel hanger-ons).
Sprint and MetroPCS have been able to work around their coverage issues
by offering Verizon roaming. For whatever reason, AT&T and T-Mobile have
very little roaming on each other anymore (in the past, the old AT&T
Wireless and T-Mobile had extensive GSM roaming, but it's gradually been
going away since Cingular took over AT&T Wireless. Maybe AT&T has
intentionally resisted any roaming agreements with T-Mobile in order to
devalue T-Mobile.
> I'm getting increasingly pissed off that while my voice coverage
> is great, there is a large area west of town that is still
> EDGE-only, and in the HSPA areas, I can't get decent connections
> sometimes, and HSPA+ is nowhere to be found in the Victor Valley.
What's HSPA or HSPA+ <he asked, half seriously!) My phone shows EDGE
or WiFi calling ALL THE TIME! OK, there are a few, VERY few, places I
see the H on the display but they're usually places I don't go...
Currently in my house in Phoenix, AZ I'm showing signal of -113dbm, 0
asu and the WiFi calling icon is showing on MyTouch 4G.
rayban sunglasses 
Linear Mode
