UKVoIPTalk.com

On Tue, 22 May 2007 18:18:11 GMT, "harrogate3" <nospam3@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>"Jonathan Pearson" <j.pearson@REMOVEtelco4u.net> wrote in message
>news:5bggscF2sj239U1@mid.individual.net...[color=green]
>> John wrote:[color=darkred]
>> >
>> > I agree with everything that Jim and Eeyore have said. The only[/color][/color]
>thing[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > that I can add to the pot is that, after 10 years, you will
>> > *definitely* have to pay to have a working line re-instated and[/color][/color]
>it's[color=green][color=darkred]
>> > currently around the £125 mark.[/color]
>>
>> Is 10 years the cut off? BT told me that ours had been disconnected[/color]
>for[color=green]
>> around 10 years when we moved in (previous occupants used Cable).
>>
>> Although BT sent an engineer round to reconnect some of the pairs it[/color]
>still[color=green]
>> cost us nowt!
>>
>> jon
>>
>>
>>[/color]
>
>Ah, you've let it slip. If the previous occupants used cable then you
>too can use cable and with them you <don't> have to have telephone or
>TV. What is more cable is much more reliable IMO than ADSL and is
>generally faster for similar cost.
>
>If they used cable then unless you had it removed the likelihood is
>that the cable will still be presented to your building so there
>should be little or no installation charge.[/color]
The cost of cable installation isn't as expensive as BT's installation
anyway. Yes, if you can go for cable only - no telephone line
required. You'll only have a choice of one provider of course.
Voip works well on Telewest area cable.

Afaik BT reconnect for free unless the disconnection was due to a bill
not being paid.
Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.

Paul Hayes wrote:[color=blue]
> Eeyore wrote:
> [snip][color=green]
>> A BT line has a heck of a lot better voice quality than VoIP too btw[/color]
> [snip]
>
> You obviously aren't using the right VoIP hardware and/or providers then![/color]

My thoughts exactly.

There's not much cheaper for International calls than FREE.

And all (95% at least) of our business incoming calls come via VOIP and
for the majority you'd never be able to tell the difference.

harrogate3 wrote:
[color=blue]
> Ah, you've let it slip. If the previous occupants used cable then you
> too can use cable and with them you <don't> have to have telephone or
> TV. What is more cable is much more reliable IMO than ADSL and is
> generally faster for similar cost.[/color]

Not my experience at all.

My ADSL Max connection is provided by Idnet and I normally see downloads (from
the usual test sites) at between 5-6 Mbps. Reliably, any time of day or week
etc. Of course a lot of that has to do with Idnet. The connection seems rock
solid and doesn't go 'iffy' from time to time as most ISPs' offerings seem to.

Tempted by the attractive pricing (£8.50 for 4Mbps!) I decided to try Virgin's
cable offering since I already had the cable here. It's currently averaging
about 1.5Mbps with rare highs close to 4Mbps and regular lows as low as 500kbps
and will sometimes completely fail to provide any connection at all to some
sites. It 'feels' congested and it obviously is. It's a good thing it's a trial
since there's no way I could live with it. I'll be ditching it (even at the
killer price) before the trial's up. It's fair value but simply not good enough.

Graham

Brian A wrote:
[color=blue]
> Afaik BT reconnect for free unless the disconnection was due to a bill
> not being paid.[/color]

I'm sure they used to. They do still seem to be runing their 'come back to BT'
promotion.

[url]http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/displayProduct.do;JSESSIONID_ecommerce=GMwJqyxG4gn7Ff7ll9J7LVDZTT94xm0X08SFdMPHhJGS222Xcy6j!-1352813188?productId=CON-16425[/url]

It's only £124.99 if your home has never had a BT line before. So it says here.
[url]http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/displayCategory.do?categoryId=CON-NEW-LINE-R1[/url]

Graham

"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:465360BC.EE018851@hotmail.com...[color=blue]
>
>
> harrogate3 wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Ah, you've let it slip. If the previous occupants used cable then[/color][/color]
you[color=blue][color=green]
> > too can use cable and with them you <don't> have to have telephone[/color][/color]
or[color=blue][color=green]
> > TV. What is more cable is much more reliable IMO than ADSL and is
> > generally faster for similar cost.[/color]
>
> Not my experience at all.
>
> My ADSL Max connection is provided by Idnet and I normally see[/color]
downloads (from[color=blue]
> the usual test sites) at between 5-6 Mbps. Reliably, any time of day[/color]
or week[color=blue]
> etc. Of course a lot of that has to do with Idnet. The connection[/color]
seems rock[color=blue]
> solid and doesn't go 'iffy' from time to time as most ISPs'[/color]
offerings seem to.[color=blue]
>
> Tempted by the attractive pricing (£8.50 for 4Mbps!) I decided to[/color]
try Virgin's[color=blue]
> cable offering since I already had the cable here. It's currently[/color]
averaging[color=blue]
> about 1.5Mbps with rare highs close to 4Mbps and regular lows as low[/color]
as 500kbps[color=blue]
> and will sometimes completely fail to provide any connection at all[/color]
to some[color=blue]
> sites. It 'feels' congested and it obviously is. It's a good thing[/color]
it's a trial[color=blue]
> since there's no way I could live with it. I'll be ditching it (even[/color]
at the[color=blue]
> killer price) before the trial's up. It's fair value but simply not[/color]
good enough.[color=blue]
>
> Graham
>[/color]

I think it very much depends where you live - and if it was an NTL or
a Telewest area. NTL expanded by taking over many small cable
companies and it has to be said that the install standards of many of
those left a lot to be desired.

Here in Harrogate (along with York and much of Leeds) the original
work was done by Bell Cablemedia and seems to have been to a high
standard. I have been on cable now for nearly six years (or is it
seven?) and in all that time I have only had two noticable outages.
I'm on a 4Mb feed but if I download in the morning it regularly runs
nearer 7Mb.

I would agree however that in the early evening - say 1800-2000 -
things can get a bit slow, but I suspect that will be the case with
many ISPs. We have gone from original feeds at 512K to as much as 8 or
10Mb but no-one has done anything about Contention Ratio. I suppose
its like digital cameras: the race for pixels is highly visible, so we
started at 1Mp and are now at 8 or 10Mp on compacts, but in many cases
the lens is now not up to the job; similarly for CR - the basic
infrastructure in the earlier days could handle many users at 512K and
give them good feed at a CR of 50:1, but now the line speeds have
exceeded the basic capability of the infrastructure. Hence at most
times of day with low loading domestic users will realise the benefit
of the higher speed line, but get to a congested time in early evening
and congestion becomes a serious problem.

I once had the advantage of an uncontended 1Mb feed direct onto one PC
and it was like lightning: when other users cam on the same feed it
could be horrendously slow.


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

In message <6zrheKNyMuUGFwnP@nospam.net>, ian <ian@nospam.net> writes[color=blue]
>There is an old BT line to my home here, with the line finishing at a
>junction box outside. I terminated the phone account about 10 years ago.
>
>I now want to use broadband, so I assume I will have to contact BT to
>install a new line from the junction box to a master socket inside the
>house. However, I don't want a phone account, as the line will only be
>necessary to carry broadband, and I will be using VoIP over the line
>for all phone calls.
>
>Is this a possible scenario, or will I have to become a BT phone
>subscriber (paying line rental) as well?
>
>Also, as a previous customer at this location, will I have to pay an
>installation charge?
>
>Finally, any recommendations for a broadband supplier? Or warnings
>against choosing any particular supplier?
>[/color]

Thanks everyone for the responses. Most of them were as expected (except
for the comments about VoIP quality not being very good and being
comparatively expensive -- this is quite the opposite of my experience).

--
Ian

ian wrote:
[color=blue]
> Thanks everyone for the responses. Most of them were as expected (except
> for the comments about VoIP quality not being very good[/color]

Oh come on. It can sound like talking through a tube. Correction, it usually
does sound like talking through a tube ! Certainly true of Skype and the other
VoIP providers I experimented with in the distant plast.

[color=blue]
> and being comparatively expensive -- this is quite the opposite of my
> experience).[/color]

How much do you pay for VoIP ?

Graham

In article <46549E5C.CFCFC8BD@hotmail.com>,
Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:[color=blue]
>
>
> ian wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Thanks everyone for the responses. Most of them were as expected (except
>> for the comments about VoIP quality not being very good[/color]
>
> Oh come on. It can sound like talking through a tube. Correction, it usually
> does sound like talking through a tube ! Certainly true of Skype and the other
> VoIP providers I experimented with in the distant plast.[/color]

I've always found VoIP to be significantly better quality than
calling over the phone system. Skype is quite different from
the VoIP standards -- don't get them mixed up.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
[color=blue]
> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes:[color=green]
> > ian wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >> Thanks everyone for the responses. Most of them were as expected (except
> >> for the comments about VoIP quality not being very good[/color]
> >
> > Oh come on. It can sound like talking through a tube. Correction, it usually
> > does sound like talking through a tube ! Certainly true of Skype and the other
> > VoIP providers I experimented with in the distant plast.[/color]
>
> I've always found VoIP to be significantly better quality than
> calling over the phone system.[/color]

What brand phone do you use ? I've found huge differences there. Nothing can beat
BT's phone in my experience to ensure a clear call.

[color=blue]
> Skype is quite different from the VoIP standards -- don't get them mixed up.[/color]

I've also heard what I took to be corporate VoIP connections that were simply
shockingly bad. They sounded like they'd gone through an echoey distortion box and
often cut out for seconds at a time.

Graham

In message <46549E5C.CFCFC8BD@hotmail.com>, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> writes[color=blue]
>
>
>ian wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Thanks everyone for the responses. Most of them were as expected (except
>> for the comments about VoIP quality not being very good[/color]
>
>Oh come on. It can sound like talking through a tube. Correction, it usually
>does sound like talking through a tube ! Certainly true of Skype and the other
>VoIP providers I experimented with in the distant plast.[/color]

I find the speech quality on Skype is excellent. Re the other VoIP
providers, you may be right about the distant past. But today the major
players offer a very good service, with very good to excellent speech
quality.

[color=blue][color=green]
>> and being comparatively expensive -- this is quite the opposite of my
>> experience).[/color]
>
>How much do you pay for VoIP ?[/color]

I use Voipfone ([url]www.voipfone.co.uk[/url]). Depending on whom I call, the cost
varies from zero to typically 1.2p per minute. Many of my calls are
VoIP-to-VoIP, where the cost is zero. Also, with VoIP, there is no call
setup cost (as I recall this is 5.5p per call on BT!). Voipfone and
others also offer dozens of other phone services (like Centrex) that
POTS doesn't.

--
Ian