Mafia style protection payments are officially voluntary as well. Cable is not the greatest for latency sensative apps. But we do have some of the best bandwidth in the world. VOIP will catch on, and if you know what you are doing, you can make existing technolgies work well without the relatively steep price of SHaw's phone service. ___ Sent with SnapperMail www.snappermail.com
...... Original Message ....... On Thu, 22 Jun 2006 18:13:13 -0600 "John Greep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The Shaw QOS is entirely voluntary. Any VOIP traffic shares bandwidth >with all IP traffic without prejudice. All Shaw is doing is giving >preference to your VOIP traffic on their network if you pay extra for >it. Mafia style implies that they will interfere with your packets if >you don't pay. There's none of that going on. > >Shaw's voice traffic travels on a separate IP network from regular >Internet traffic, so the quality is better than traditional VOIP. If >the back-end network appears to be lacking, it is only a matter of >time. Shaw has some very smart people working there. Consider that >their phone service was implemented within a year. Nobody else can put >together a service that fast with as good a quality as your seeing. > >John > >Gustin Johnson wrote: >> It still relies on Shaw's IP backbone, so it is only technically not a >> VOIP service. The VOIP part is moved from the customer premise to their >> back end. End result is that the service is only as reliable as the back >> end network, which is not quite there yet (for all VOIP providers). >> >> I find it reprehensible the VOIP protection racket that Shaw is runnig. >> Although I don't really sympathise with the major corps fighting the "Net >> Neutrality" thing (I like the idea of Microsoft and Google footing the bill >> instead of me), I also do not Mafia style business practises. >> >> Just my obviously touchy 2 cents. >> Cheers, >> -- >> Gustin >> ___ >> Sent with SnapperMail >> www.snappermail.com >> >> ...... Original Message ....... >> On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 22:05:41 -0600 "Graham Monk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >>>> You are right - I was just speaking to one of Shaw's technicians >>>> >> yesterday and >> >>>> he told me that it is not voip (does not use the internet at all) and is >>>> using a completely separate cable channel to their internet service. >>>> >>> To "their internet service" >>> >>> It's voice, it goes to "their internet service" How is this NOT VOIP? >>> >>> Sorry, you just pushed one of my buttons, the " It's not VOIP" line >>> that Shaw spouts, sounds far too much like a justification that an >>> incumbent provider uses for charging twice as much as anyone else. >>> That and the fat that if you use a competing service on something that >>> is not Shaw extreme you tend to find the quality less than optimal. >>> >>> graham >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> clug-talk mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca >>> Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) >>> **Please remove these lines when replying >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> clug-talk mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca >> Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) >> **Please remove these lines when replying >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >clug-talk mailing list >[email protected] >http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca >Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) >**Please remove these lines when replying _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
