Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)
In message <947d5aea.0409012009.17f7db82@posting.google.com>
charlie@cdsdetroit.com (charlie3) wrote:
>I have Vonage set to 50kbs, the medium setting, and nobody notices
>they are talking on an internet phone.
I've had a few people ask if I'm on a cell (mostly because they're the
type of person that would call back on a landline to avoid wasting cell
minutes) when I was using lower quality, but it was never an issue.
I have plenty of upstream bandwidth, I was just trying it out for the
sake of trying it out.
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)
DevilsPGD wrote:
> In message <947d5aea.0409012009.17f7db82@posting.google.com>
> charlie@cdsdetroit.com (charlie3) wrote:
>
>
>>I have Vonage set to 50kbs, the medium setting, and nobody notices
>>they are talking on an internet phone.
>
>
> I've had a few people ask if I'm on a cell (mostly because they're the
> type of person that would call back on a landline to avoid wasting cell
> minutes) when I was using lower quality, but it was never an issue.
Vonage was great for me also sound-quality wise, most of the time, and I
noticed only very minor differences between the bandwidth settings (most
people I was speaking to noticed nothing different). My only pet peeve
was the Motorola ATA; it never did QoS right, even if I had the unit
first-in-line to my cable modem. If anything else on the network was
downloading anything of substance, the audio would get choppy, and THEN
people would start to ask if I was on a cell phone. This was on a 4Mbps
downstream/1.5Mbps upstream connection, so I doubt the broadband
connection was my problem.
I ended up switching to Packet8. The features aren't as refined and
polished, but the service is good, and their ATA operates just fine
behind my router even if I intentionally place a heavy traffic load on
the network. Sound quality is about on par with Vonage at its
low-bandwidth setting, but still useable and close enough to toll grade
IMO. Again, people I talk to don't notice a difference.
--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)
In message <WRHZc.2977$Pb5.1798@fe35.usenetserver.com> Isaiah Beard
<sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:
>Vonage was great for me also sound-quality wise, most of the time, and I
>noticed only very minor differences between the bandwidth settings (most
>people I was speaking to noticed nothing different). My only pet peeve
>was the Motorola ATA; it never did QoS right, even if I had the unit
>first-in-line to my cable modem. If anything else on the network was
>downloading anything of substance, the audio would get choppy, and THEN
>people would start to ask if I was on a cell phone. This was on a 4Mbps
>downstream/1.5Mbps upstream connection, so I doubt the broadband
>connection was my problem.
>
>I ended up switching to Packet8. The features aren't as refined and
>polished, but the service is good, and their ATA operates just fine
>behind my router even if I intentionally place a heavy traffic load on
>the network. Sound quality is about on par with Vonage at its
>low-bandwidth setting, but still useable and close enough to toll grade
>IMO. Again, people I talk to don't notice a difference.
I have both my Cisco ATA and Motorola ATA behind my network firewall
(Only the WAN port of the Motorola is connected) -- I have my own QoS
which reserves approximately 100Kb of my 1024Kb for VoIP at all times,
and offers port-based QoS so that above 100Kb, outbound traffic from the
ATAs will be processed before any other traffic.
--
Some people are like Slinkies... You can't help but
smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.