e woods are fun.
Ralph Brandt
-Original Message-
From: Luke S. Crawford [mailto:l...@prgmr.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 3:26 PM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 10:59:47AM -0400, Brandt, Ralph wrote:
> One o
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Luke S. Crawford wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 10:59:47AM -0400, Brandt, Ralph wrote:
>> One of the first things cellular companies can do is stop overselling
>> cellular. The second is end or raise the price significantly on
>> unlimited plans, both voice and
On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 10:59:47AM -0400, Brandt, Ralph wrote:
> One of the first things cellular companies can do is stop overselling
> cellular. The second is end or raise the price significantly on
> unlimited plans, both voice and data. Go to what the landlines called,
> USS, that is you pay
On May 3, 2012, at 14:37, Brandt, Ralph wrote:
> Sean, do you know anyone who has successfully used either to place a
> call?
Not to my knowledge. Due to some family in government I'm sure I know someone
who's authorized for one or the other, but I can't say the topic's ever come
up. I'm ju
; To: Brandt, Ralph
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)
>
> That's precisely where SatCom enters the picture. Cell companies
> aren't ever going to undersell their bandwidth...that simply isn't
> profitable. SatCom
On May 3, 2012, at 14:19, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> {citation-needed}
I don't have any numbers to offer, but given the near universality of cellular
phones these days among the adult population I could easily see a majority
going for cellular. Car accidents, house fires, and a lot of other types o
ralph.bra...@pateam.com
5095 Ritter Rd
Mechanicsburg PA 17055
-Original Message-
From: Sean Harlow [mailto:s...@seanharlow.info]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 12:36 PM
To: Mike Hale
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)
On May 3, 2012, at 12:26, Mike Hale wrote
-Original Message-
From: Mike Hale [mailto:eyeronic.des...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 12:32 PM
To: Brandt, Ralph
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)
That's precisely where SatCom enters the picture. Cell companies
aren't ever going to
ked at the
other two as snake oil salesmen
I was the only one who asked any questions.
Ralph Brandt
York PA 17055
-Original Message-
From: Mike Hale [mailto:eyeronic.des...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 12:26 PM
To: Tei
Cc: NANOG list
Subject: Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re:
- Original Message -
> From: "Ralph Brandt"
> The problem with this is, MOST 911 CALLS ARE CELLULAR or soon will be.
{citation-needed}
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink j...@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think
The problem with this is, MOST 911 CALLS ARE CELLULAR or soon will be.
Ralph Brandt
PA
-Original Message-
From: Tei [mailto:oscar.vi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 11:15 AM
To: NANOG list
Subject: Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)
Perhaps cell towers
On May 3, 2012, at 12:26, Mike Hale wrote:
> Don't cell companies already provide over-ride codes to various
> federal agencies to obtain emergency priority access to cell service?
That would be the Nationwide Wireless Priority Service. Authorized users can
dial *272 to get priority on supporte
ll 911. Hopefully it will not be on
> VOIP and the internet is down.
>
>
> Ralph Brandt
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 4:15 PM
> To: Eric Wieling
> Cc: NANOG list
> Subject: VoIP vs POTS
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Tei wrote:
** Perhaps cell towers can be made to fail sooner, and enter some
** emergency mode where only 911 calls get service.
**
**
**
** --
Don't cell companies already provide over-ride codes to various
federal agencies to obtain emergency priority access to c
Perhaps cell towers can be made to fail sooner, and enter some
emergency mode where only 911 calls get service.
--
--
ℱin del ℳensaje.
, 2012 8:25 PM
To: NANOG
Subject: Re: VoIP vs POTS (was Re: Operation Ghost Click)
- Original Message -
> From: "Jeroen van Aart"
> I don't doubt it. However my practical experience is such that 100% of
> the time (I lost count after 20 or so, in a decade) I exper
aiting for the yackers to get
off the call phone so they can call 911. Hopefully it will not be on
VOIP and the internet is down.
Ralph Brandt
-Original Message-
From: Jared Mauch [mailto:ja...@puck.nether.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 4:15 PM
To: Eric Wieling
Cc: NANOG list
Subj
- Original Message -
> From: "Jeroen van Aart"
> I don't doubt it. However my practical experience is such that 100% of
> the time (I lost count after 20 or so, in a decade) I experienced a
> power failure the phone would still work. I am sure I am not the only
> one.
Sure. (We're not r
Jared Mauch wrote:
Regarding landline service, this can fail for many of the common reasons it
does are the same reasons that IP service may fail. The failure modes can
depend on a variety of circumstances from the physical layer (e.g.: audible
static on the line) that cause your ear to retra
This device uses cellular only. Don't live in vz territory. Live in AT&T pots
only land. No cable here either.
Jared Mauch
On May 2, 2012, at 5:33 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On 5/2/12, Jared Mauch wrote:
>> Personally, I'm thinking of ditching my ISDN (gives clear dial tone at a
>> long-dis
On 5/2/12, Jared Mauch wrote:
> Personally, I'm thinking of ditching my ISDN (gives clear dial tone at a
> long-distance from the CO) for something like the Verizon Home Connect box.
> Gives a few hours of built-in battery backup, but would fail once the tower
> loses power (usually 8-12 hours).
On May 2, 2012, at 3:52 PM, Eric Wieling wrote:
>
> I doubt the g729 or GSM codecs used by VoIP and Cell phones can compare to a
> POTS line.
This is why many people use g711ulaw or other codec.
Personally I would not work with anyone that doesn't do g711ulaw (88.2kbit when
IP packet overhe
22 matches
Mail list logo
