SprintPCS card return experience

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

I bought a PCMCIA card from the SprintPCS store in Carmel, IN.
The experience was good; the people were helpful and
intelligent. (The Carmel store is *much* better than others.)

I tested the card and *really* wanted to justify keeping it
but the performance was insufficient for my needs. I returned
it on the 14th day after purchase. The same salesperson
handled the return and was quite pleasant and understanding.
(She got the same card right before I did.)

Thumbs up.

--kyler

P.S. I noticed that they had Cisco IP phones (7940?) in the
store. I continue to hope that SprintPCS might offer a VoIP
option.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Kyler Laird wrote:

> P.S. I noticed that they had Cisco IP phones (7940?) in the
> store. I continue to hope that SprintPCS might offer a VoIP
> option.

Just curious, but what benefit do you see from Sprint offering VoIP over
the existing network?

I for one am a fan of VoIp and in fact fact one as my "landline" at home
now. But doing VoIP over a circuit switched network seems to me the
equivalent of getting traditional phone service, using it to dial up
and ISP of 56K modem, and then hooking up Vonage to that connection...
why not just use the first layer in that case?


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> writes:

>> P.S. I noticed that they had Cisco IP phones (7940?) in the
>> store. I continue to hope that SprintPCS might offer a VoIP
>> option.

>Just curious, but what benefit do you see from Sprint offering VoIP over
>the existing network?

Control. There should also be a price drop.

>I for one am a fan of VoIp and in fact fact one as my "landline" at home
>now. But doing VoIP over a circuit switched network seems to me the
>equivalent of getting traditional phone service, using it to dial up
>and ISP of 56K modem, and then hooking up Vonage to that connection...

I'm not suggesting that (although I recently tested such a configuration
to see just how feasible it would be).

>why not just use the first layer in that case?

I'd like to do that. Ideally they'd just route the voice calls over
IP to whatever server is specified.

--kyler

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

VOIP over Sprint's wireless data network doesn't work. I tried out of
curiosity, the connection is just not good enough. I think that the problem
has as much to do with latency as it does with speed.

I have done sucessful VOIP calls over POTS. My wife regularly works in the
Middle East where international termination charges are very high and where
broadband in the hotel room is not yet the norm (though it is being rolled
out there somewhat as we speak). We talk over Skype when she is connected
to a 56k dialup and it does work. This is particularly true in Kuwait where
the dial connections seem to be particularly good.

I would never run a business behind a 56k VOIP line and I would never use it
as my main phone line, but with the appropriate codec and some patience, you
can do a dialup VOIP call to a friend or family member on a dialup
connection.

Stu



"Kyler Laird" <Kyler@news.Lairds.org> wrote in message
news:3kfq62-4m4.ln1@lairds.us...
> Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> writes:
>
>>> P.S. I noticed that they had Cisco IP phones (7940?) in the
>>> store. I continue to hope that SprintPCS might offer a VoIP
>>> option.
>
>>Just curious, but what benefit do you see from Sprint offering VoIP over
>>the existing network?
>
> Control. There should also be a price drop.
>
>>I for one am a fan of VoIp and in fact fact one as my "landline" at home
>>now. But doing VoIP over a circuit switched network seems to me the
>>equivalent of getting traditional phone service, using it to dial up
>>and ISP of 56K modem, and then hooking up Vonage to that connection...
>
> I'm not suggesting that (although I recently tested such a configuration
> to see just how feasible it would be).
>
>>why not just use the first layer in that case?
>
> I'd like to do that. Ideally they'd just route the voice calls over
> IP to whatever server is specified.
>
> --kyler

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Stuart Friedman" <stu@nospam.na> writes:

>VOIP over Sprint's wireless data network doesn't work. I tried out of
>curiosity, the connection is just not good enough. I think that the problem
>has as much to do with latency as it does with speed.

It has everything to do with latency. It *does* (or at least can) work.
The incoming stream was clear for me even using ulaw (64Kbps) compression.
I couldn't get a GSM stream to go through reasonably though. Others have
has success with iLBC.

Using a jitter buffer probably would have solved my problem but I didn't
have much time to play with it before I had to decide to return the card.

Don't let this distract though; I'd much rather use Sprint's voice network
to do voice (at this time, at least). I just want VoIP termination and
the elimination of all of the PSTN charges.

--kyler

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Kyler Laird wrote:
> Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> writes:

>
>>Just curious, but what benefit do you see from Sprint offering VoIP over
>>the existing network?
>
>
> Control.

Control of what?

> There should also be a price drop.

How? The FCC has and will continue to regulate wireless, and the states
will continue to impose taxes on the industry. Even the recent FCC
decision that labels VoIP providers as "content providers" and free from
state regulation only applies to "nomadic" services (Vonage, Packet8,
Skype) and not to companies that provide an established infrastructure,
like cable TV, landline and wireless phone companies. Packet or
circuit, these providers are still subject to the old tariff model if
the states see fit to continue that form of regulation (and indications
are that they do).


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> writes:

>>>Just curious, but what benefit do you see from Sprint offering VoIP over
>>>the existing network?

>> Control.

>Control of what?

voice calls

>> There should also be a price drop.

>How?

My bill is full of charges for access to the PSTN. You think they
should still charge for PSTN access if they're not providing it?!

--kyler

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Kyler Laird wrote:
> Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> writes:
>
>
>>>>Just curious, but what benefit do you see from Sprint offering VoIP over
>>>>the existing network?
>
>
>>>Control.
>>Control of what?
> voice calls

Are you being purposefully obtuse, or do you simply not know what you're
talking about?

Let me be specific. Assuming Sprint rolls out VoIP, how will a user see
a benefit in terms of "control" of voice calls?

>
>>>There should also be a price drop.

>>How?
>
> My bill is full of charges for access to the PSTN. You think they
> should still charge for PSTN access if they're not providing it?!

No, but they can charge a VoIP access tariff. SBC is way ahead of you:

http://informationweek.networkingpipeline.com/news/53700323

Also, the FCC's regulations defining VoIP providers as "information
providers" and not PSTN carriers apply only to "nomadic" services, such
as Vonage, Packet8 and Skype. Companies that also deploy and bundle
their service with infrastructure, such as cable phone and wireless
providers are still subject to traditional tariffs and state regulation.
So, Sprint rolling out VoIP won't help you there, either.



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Isaiah Beard <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> writes:

>Are you being purposefully obtuse, or do you simply not know what you're
>talking about?

I'm purposefully saying exactly what I mean. I hope I'm at least doing
a better job of responding to what I quote than you are. If not, please
make corrections.

>Let me be specific. Assuming Sprint rolls out VoIP, how will a user see
>a benefit in terms of "control" of voice calls?

I don't know. That's the point. The user will get to decide what
happens with the calls. Letting the user define his own benefits is a
big part of what I call "control".

>>>>There should also be a price drop.

>>>How?
>>
>> My bill is full of charges for access to the PSTN. You think they
>> should still charge for PSTN access if they're not providing it?!

>No, but they can charge a VoIP access tariff.

They who? The gov't? They're going to start charging a tax based on
content of IP? It could happen but I wouldn't bet on it.

>SBC is way ahead of you:

Think so? What's the relationship? Does SBC's tariff have anything
to do with SprintPCS service?

--kyler