Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Cutting the Cord?

Tags:
  • Verizon
  • Cell Phones
  • Internet Service Providers
Last response: in Wireless Carriers
Share
Anonymous
August 11, 2004 1:09:11 PM

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

I am curious to know how cutting the cord has worked out for those who've
done it. We have 2 young children, and I am wondering if it would work for
us.

I would probably buy a docking station like the one in the link below, so we
don't have to spend so much time on the cell phone itself.



http://www.phonelabs.com/prd05.asp

More about : cutting cord

Anonymous
August 11, 2004 2:27:04 PM

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

Buck Turgidson wrote:
> I am curious to know how cutting the cord has worked out for those
> who've done it. We have 2 young children, and I am wondering if it
> would work for us.
>
> I would probably buy a docking station like the one in the link
> below, so we don't have to spend so much time on the cell phone
> itself.
>
>
>
> http://www.phonelabs.com/prd05.asp

I wouldn't do it because of the improved 911 service you get on land
lines. Especially with a family.

Just use the mobile phones for all long distance and keep your land line
for $35/month.

I have many friends (single) who have moved to a mobile-only setup and
reaching them is impossible at times. Plus, cell phones are bad for you
to talk on without a hands-free and who wants to have to use one at
home. Your kids will have that phone glued to their ears until they fall
off.


--
David G.
Anonymous
August 12, 2004 5:32:33 PM

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

Buck Turgidson wrote:

> I am curious to know how cutting the cord has worked out for those who've
> done it. We have 2 young children, and I am wondering if it would work for
> us.

So far, so good. No landline phone here for going on four years now,
and haven't really missed it.

The key to cutting the cord is making sure the cell coverage is VERY
good where you live. As long as the signal is strong, most people won't
even realize you're on a cell phone when they call you.
Related resources
Anonymous
August 12, 2004 10:05:42 PM

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

Isaiah Beard wrote:
>
> Buck Turgidson wrote:
>
> > I am curious to know how cutting the cord has worked out for those who've
> > done it. We have 2 young children, and I am wondering if it would work for
> > us.
>
> So far, so good. No landline phone here for going on four years now,
> and haven't really missed it.
>
> The key to cutting the cord is making sure the cell coverage is VERY
> good where you live. As long as the signal is strong, most people won't
> even realize you're on a cell phone when they call you.

Obviously, no need for a fax machine. Correct?

Notan
Anonymous
August 12, 2004 10:05:43 PM

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

"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
news:411BB176.52483893@ddress.com...
> Isaiah Beard wrote:
> >
> > Buck Turgidson wrote:
> >
> > > I am curious to know how cutting the cord has worked out for those
who've
> > > done it. We have 2 young children, and I am wondering if it would
work for
> > > us.
> >
> > So far, so good. No landline phone here for going on four years now,
> > and haven't really missed it.
> >
> > The key to cutting the cord is making sure the cell coverage is VERY
> > good where you live. As long as the signal is strong, most people won't
> > even realize you're on a cell phone when they call you.
>
> Obviously, no need for a fax machine. Correct?
>
> Notan

What the H does that have to do with it? There are many options for using
fax with cellphones. There are even options for using a cellphone with the
inhouse phone wiring so you can use any of the phones (and fax) in your home
with the cellphone rather than a landline.
August 12, 2004 10:05:43 PM

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

"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
news:411BB176.52483893@ddress.com...
>
> Obviously, no need for a fax machine. Correct?

Why does anyone need a fax machine?


>
> Notan
Anonymous
August 12, 2004 10:05:44 PM

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

Peter Pan wrote:
> "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
> news:411BB176.52483893@ddress.com...
>> Isaiah Beard wrote:
>>>
>>> Buck Turgidson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am curious to know how cutting the cord has worked out for those
>>>> who've done it. We have 2 young children, and I am wondering if
>>>> it would work for us.
>>>
>>> So far, so good. No landline phone here for going on four years
>>> now, and haven't really missed it.
>>>
>>> The key to cutting the cord is making sure the cell coverage is VERY
>>> good where you live. As long as the signal is strong, most people
>>> won't even realize you're on a cell phone when they call you.
>>
>> Obviously, no need for a fax machine. Correct?
>>
>> Notan
>
> What the H does that have to do with it? There are many options for
> using fax with cellphones. There are even options for using a
> cellphone with the inhouse phone wiring so you can use any of the
> phones (and fax) in your home with the cellphone rather than a
> landline.

Could be an issue. The fax machine will dial the number of the
far end fax machine. The cell phone/socket has no way of knowing
its a data call and will simply dial the number as a voice call.
When you use your cell phone as a modem/browser/etc. it is dialing
a special number which connects as a data call. It makes a difference.
Possibly codec, then VAD and maybe even ECAN, right?

-Quick
Anonymous
August 12, 2004 10:32:45 PM

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

George wrote:
> "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
> news:411BB176.52483893@ddress.com...
>>
>> Obviously, no need for a fax machine. Correct?
>
> Why does anyone need a fax machine?
>
>
>>
>> Notan

I have one. On Vonage... and it works.

--
David G.
Anonymous
August 12, 2004 11:43:17 PM

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

"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1092344789.777373@sj-nntpcache-3...
> Peter Pan wrote:
> > "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
> > news:411BB176.52483893@ddress.com...
> >> Isaiah Beard wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Buck Turgidson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I am curious to know how cutting the cord has worked out for those
> >>>> who've done it. We have 2 young children, and I am wondering if
> >>>> it would work for us.
> >>>
> >>> So far, so good. No landline phone here for going on four years
> >>> now, and haven't really missed it.
> >>>
> >>> The key to cutting the cord is making sure the cell coverage is VERY
> >>> good where you live. As long as the signal is strong, most people
> >>> won't even realize you're on a cell phone when they call you.
> >>
> >> Obviously, no need for a fax machine. Correct?
> >>
> >> Notan
> >
> > What the H does that have to do with it? There are many options for
> > using fax with cellphones. There are even options for using a
> > cellphone with the inhouse phone wiring so you can use any of the
> > phones (and fax) in your home with the cellphone rather than a
> > landline.
>
> Could be an issue. The fax machine will dial the number of the
> far end fax machine. The cell phone/socket has no way of knowing
> its a data call and will simply dial the number as a voice call.
> When you use your cell phone as a modem/browser/etc. it is dialing
> a special number which connects as a data call. It makes a difference.
> Possibly codec, then VAD and maybe even ECAN, right?
>
> -Quick
>
>

High speed modems will not work with cellphones (computer modems and CC
machines), but a fax is much much slower (interestingly enough usually 9600
or 14,400 baud, does not use packet switching, but a direct connect, same
speed as QWK2NET provides making direct calls to an ISP) and does not use
data call parameters, it is a direct connection. There are two main types of
connections, circuit switched and packet switched. A low speed (FAX or
QWK2NET call) uses circuit switched, while the higher speed uses
packet-switched (which is incompatible). Ever wonder why you can use QWK2NET
at lower speeds the same as fax?
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 12:49:10 AM

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

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:32:33 -0400, Isaiah Beard
<sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote:

>Buck Turgidson wrote:
>
>> I am curious to know how cutting the cord has worked out for those who've
>> done it. We have 2 young children, and I am wondering if it would work for
>> us.
>
>So far, so good. No landline phone here for going on four years now,
>and haven't really missed it.
>
>The key to cutting the cord is making sure the cell coverage is VERY
>good where you live. As long as the signal is strong, most people won't
>even realize you're on a cell phone when they call you.

Have you applied for credit in those four years? It is my
understanding that it is difficult to get credit if you do not have a
landline phone.

My daughter was denied a credit card because of this The next time she
used our home landline number and had no trouble getting the credit
card. Nothing else had changed.
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 3:20:48 AM

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

Peter Pan wrote:
>
> "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
> news:411BB176.52483893@ddress.com...
> > Isaiah Beard wrote:
> > >
> > > Buck Turgidson wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am curious to know how cutting the cord has worked out for those
> who've
> > > > done it. We have 2 young children, and I am wondering if it would
> work for
> > > > us.
> > >
> > > So far, so good. No landline phone here for going on four years now,
> > > and haven't really missed it.
> > >
> > > The key to cutting the cord is making sure the cell coverage is VERY
> > > good where you live. As long as the signal is strong, most people won't
> > > even realize you're on a cell phone when they call you.
> >
> > Obviously, no need for a fax machine. Correct?
> >
> > Notan
>
> What the H does that have to do with it? There are many options for using
> fax with cellphones. There are even options for using a cellphone with the
> inhouse phone wiring so you can use any of the phones (and fax) in your home
> with the cellphone rather than a landline.

Yo, Einstein. The whole idea in "cutting the cord" isn't to create
a cordless phone, it's to get rid of ones landline.

Notan
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 3:20:49 AM

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

"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
news:411BFB50.688A6557@ddress.com...
> Peter Pan wrote:
> >
> > "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
> > news:411BB176.52483893@ddress.com...
> > > Isaiah Beard wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Buck Turgidson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I am curious to know how cutting the cord has worked out for those
> > who've
> > > > > done it. We have 2 young children, and I am wondering if it would
> > work for
> > > > > us.
> > > >
> > > > So far, so good. No landline phone here for going on four years
now,
> > > > and haven't really missed it.
> > > >
> > > > The key to cutting the cord is making sure the cell coverage is VERY
> > > > good where you live. As long as the signal is strong, most people
won't
> > > > even realize you're on a cell phone when they call you.
> > >
> > > Obviously, no need for a fax machine. Correct?
> > >
> > > Notan
> >
> > What the H does that have to do with it? There are many options for
using
> > fax with cellphones. There are even options for using a cellphone with
the
> > inhouse phone wiring so you can use any of the phones (and fax) in your
home
> > with the cellphone rather than a landline.
>
> Yo, Einstein. The whole idea in "cutting the cord" isn't to create
> a cordless phone, it's to get rid of ones landline.
>
> Notan

Yo idiot, getting rid of the landline, and using the cellphone INSTEAD of
the landline is EXACTLY what these things do.
August 13, 2004 5:27:50 AM

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

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:05:42 GMT, Notan <notan@ddress.com> wrote:

>Obviously, no need for a fax machine. Correct?
>
>Notan

Yes, I have a need for a fax and I am a wireless only phone user. I
routinely send and receive fax's with my Verizon cell phone. A $15.00
data cord and WinFax pro was all it took to gain fax capabilities.

Being wireless only works great for me. I live alone however and I
ported my landline number to my cell phone, so it appears as though I
have a regular local landline. In fact I have a hard time convincing
some people that I am on a cell phone away from home.
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 5:27:51 AM

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

Bob wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:05:42 GMT, Notan <notan@ddress.com> wrote:
>
>> Obviously, no need for a fax machine. Correct?
>>
>> Notan
>
> Yes, I have a need for a fax and I am a wireless only phone user. I
> routinely send and receive fax's with my Verizon cell phone. A $15.00
> data cord and WinFax pro was all it took to gain fax capabilities.

What do you do for incoming faxes?

I assume there are some services that would be a sort of fax "mailbox"
where you could retrieve them over the net or otherwise as images?
I also assume there would be some charge for the service.

-Quick
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 5:27:52 AM

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

Quick <quick7135-news@nospamyahoo.com> wrote:

> I assume there are some services that would be a sort of fax "mailbox"
> where you could retrieve them over the net or otherwise as images?
> I also assume there would be some charge for the service.

eFax still has a free incoming-only fax to email service.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 6:02:16 AM

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

2 young children? Don't even think about getting rid of your landline. Keep
the most basic landline service usually around $18/month for emergency use
only. Cellular phones are known to drop calls for no reasons, have
connection problems and when things are busy, have circuits busy a lot.
Since I do not have kids, I've dropped land line service for myself. I also
have programmed all emergency phone numbers into my address book if some
thing goes wrong. Of course my VoIP phone I use has all the appropriate
phone numbers it in also. With your kids, they're much more important then
an extra land line hanging around.

"Buck Turgidson" <jc_va@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rdipu1-83s.ln1@hp.coleman.com...
> I am curious to know how cutting the cord has worked out for those who've
> done it. We have 2 young children, and I am wondering if it would work
for
> us.
>
> I would probably buy a docking station like the one in the link below, so
we
> don't have to spend so much time on the cell phone itself.
>
>
>
> http://www.phonelabs.com/prd05.asp
>
>
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 6:42:00 AM

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

Bob wrote:
>
> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:05:42 GMT, Notan <notan@ddress.com> wrote:
>
> >Obviously, no need for a fax machine. Correct?
> >
> >Notan
>
> Yes, I have a need for a fax and I am a wireless only phone user. I
> routinely send and receive fax's with my Verizon cell phone. A $15.00
> data cord and WinFax pro was all it took to gain fax capabilities.
>
> Being wireless only works great for me. I live alone however and I
> ported my landline number to my cell phone, so it appears as though I
> have a regular local landline. In fact I have a hard time convincing
> some people that I am on a cell phone away from home.

I can understand the attraction to "cutting the cord" for an individual,
but for any type of small business, or larger, the inability to handle
multiple calls, or send/receive faxes easily, makes it rather impractical.

Notan
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 7:12:11 AM

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

Peter Pan wrote:
>
> "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
> news:411BFB50.688A6557@ddress.com...
> > Peter Pan wrote:
> > >
> > > "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
> > > news:411BB176.52483893@ddress.com...
> > > > Isaiah Beard wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Buck Turgidson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I am curious to know how cutting the cord has worked out for those
> > > who've
> > > > > > done it. We have 2 young children, and I am wondering if it would
> > > work for
> > > > > > us.
> > > > >
> > > > > So far, so good. No landline phone here for going on four years
> now,
> > > > > and haven't really missed it.
> > > > >
> > > > > The key to cutting the cord is making sure the cell coverage is VERY
> > > > > good where you live. As long as the signal is strong, most people
> won't
> > > > > even realize you're on a cell phone when they call you.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously, no need for a fax machine. Correct?
> > > >
> > > > Notan
> > >
> > > What the H does that have to do with it? There are many options for
> using
> > > fax with cellphones. There are even options for using a cellphone with
> the
> > > inhouse phone wiring so you can use any of the phones (and fax) in your
> home
> > > with the cellphone rather than a landline.
> >
> > Yo, Einstein. The whole idea in "cutting the cord" isn't to create
> > a cordless phone, it's to get rid of ones landline.
> >
> > Notan
>
> Yo idiot, getting rid of the landline, and using the cellphone INSTEAD of
> the landline is EXACTLY what these things do.

References?

Notan
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 7:12:12 AM

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

"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
news:411C318B.34246A33@ddress.com...
> Peter Pan wrote:
> >
> > "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
> > news:411BFB50.688A6557@ddress.com...
> > > Peter Pan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:411BB176.52483893@ddress.com...
> > > > > Isaiah Beard wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Buck Turgidson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am curious to know how cutting the cord has worked out for
those
> > > > who've
> > > > > > > done it. We have 2 young children, and I am wondering if it
would
> > > > work for
> > > > > > > us.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So far, so good. No landline phone here for going on four years
> > now,
> > > > > > and haven't really missed it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The key to cutting the cord is making sure the cell coverage is
VERY
> > > > > > good where you live. As long as the signal is strong, most
people
> > won't
> > > > > > even realize you're on a cell phone when they call you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Obviously, no need for a fax machine. Correct?
> > > > >
> > > > > Notan
> > > >
> > > > What the H does that have to do with it? There are many options for
> > using
> > > > fax with cellphones. There are even options for using a cellphone
with
> > the
> > > > inhouse phone wiring so you can use any of the phones (and fax) in
your
> > home
> > > > with the cellphone rather than a landline.
> > >
> > > Yo, Einstein. The whole idea in "cutting the cord" isn't to create
> > > a cordless phone, it's to get rid of ones landline.
> > >
> > > Notan
> >
> > Yo idiot, getting rid of the landline, and using the cellphone INSTEAD
of
> > the landline is EXACTLY what these things do.
>
> References?
>
> Notan

I used to have a phonecell from http://www.telular.com a few years ago, but
now have 3 of these (cellsocket at http://www.cellsocket.com ) one at
work/one at home/another in my RV. Just drop my cellphone into the device
(which also charges) to use a regular phone, or take the cellphone out to
use it as a cellphone.
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 7:57:43 AM

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

Peter Pan wrote:
>
> "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
> news:411C318B.34246A33@ddress.com...
> > Peter Pan wrote:
> > >
> > > "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
> > > news:411BFB50.688A6557@ddress.com...
> > > > Peter Pan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:411BB176.52483893@ddress.com...
> > > > > > Isaiah Beard wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Buck Turgidson wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am curious to know how cutting the cord has worked out for
> those
> > > > > who've
> > > > > > > > done it. We have 2 young children, and I am wondering if it
> would
> > > > > work for
> > > > > > > > us.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So far, so good. No landline phone here for going on four years
> > > now,
> > > > > > > and haven't really missed it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The key to cutting the cord is making sure the cell coverage is
> VERY
> > > > > > > good where you live. As long as the signal is strong, most
> people
> > > won't
> > > > > > > even realize you're on a cell phone when they call you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Obviously, no need for a fax machine. Correct?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Notan
> > > > >
> > > > > What the H does that have to do with it? There are many options for
> > > using
> > > > > fax with cellphones. There are even options for using a cellphone
> with
> > > the
> > > > > inhouse phone wiring so you can use any of the phones (and fax) in
> your
> > > home
> > > > > with the cellphone rather than a landline.
> > > >
> > > > Yo, Einstein. The whole idea in "cutting the cord" isn't to create
> > > > a cordless phone, it's to get rid of ones landline.
> > > >
> > > > Notan
> > >
> > > Yo idiot, getting rid of the landline, and using the cellphone INSTEAD
> of
> > > the landline is EXACTLY what these things do.
> >
> > References?
> >
> > Notan
>
> I used to have a phonecell from http://www.telular.com a few years ago, but
> now have 3 of these (cellsocket at http://www.cellsocket.com ) one at
> work/one at home/another in my RV. Just drop my cellphone into the device
> (which also charges) to use a regular phone, or take the cellphone out to
> use it as a cellphone.

OK, my apologies for the "Einstein" jab.

The way I read your post was that you were suggesting using a cell phone
connected to a functional landline (i.e., just creating another cordless
phone).

I do, however, still feel that "cutting the cord" has limited applications.

Notan
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 7:57:44 AM

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

"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
news:411C3C37.3ED71FDD@ddress.com...
> > >
> > > References?
> > >
> > > Notan
> >
> > I used to have a phonecell from http://www.telular.com a few years ago,
but
> > now have 3 of these (cellsocket at http://www.cellsocket.com ) one at
> > work/one at home/another in my RV. Just drop my cellphone into the
device
> > (which also charges) to use a regular phone, or take the cellphone out
to
> > use it as a cellphone.
>
> OK, my apologies for the "Einstein" jab.
>
> The way I read your post was that you were suggesting using a cell phone
> connected to a functional landline (i.e., just creating another cordless
> phone).
>
> I do, however, still feel that "cutting the cord" has limited
applications.
>
> Notan

Nope, sorry for the confusion, it was meant to be cutting the cord as in
landline system to street/phone box. I assumed "cutting the cord" refers to
cutting off the landline/phone company phone line outside the house, not the
lines inside the house. I should know better than to "assume" anything.
August 13, 2004 1:01:08 PM

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

"Killer Madness" <killermike@qwerty.com> wrote in message
news:KPYSc.66481$Pu4.20896@fe36.usenetserver.com...
> 2 young children? Don't even think about getting rid of your landline.
Keep
> the most basic landline service usually around $18/month for emergency use
> only. Cellular phones are known to drop calls for no reasons, have
> connection problems and when things are busy, have circuits busy a lot.

Maybe yours does but I can even use mine in my concrete walled basement and
it doesn't drop calls and I haven't heard a circuit busy in at least 5
years...



> Since I do not have kids, I've dropped land line service for myself. I
also
> have programmed all emergency phone numbers into my address book if some
> thing goes wrong. Of course my VoIP phone I use has all the appropriate
> phone numbers it in also. With your kids, they're much more important then
> an extra land line hanging around.
>
> "Buck Turgidson" <jc_va@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rdipu1-83s.ln1@hp.coleman.com...
> > I am curious to know how cutting the cord has worked out for those
who've
> > done it. We have 2 young children, and I am wondering if it would work
> for
> > us.
> >
> > I would probably buy a docking station like the one in the link below,
so
> we
> > don't have to spend so much time on the cell phone itself.
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.phonelabs.com/prd05.asp
> >
> >
>
>
>
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 1:34:56 PM

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

George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> My question is why does anyone need a fax? Most everything is in electronic
> form today and if it isn't it is trivial to scan and email something.

There are still companies that will only accept certain pieces of information
by fax.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 2:45:43 PM

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

Peter Pan wrote:
> "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1092344789.777373@sj-nntpcache-3...
>> Peter Pan wrote:
>>> "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
>>> news:411BB176.52483893@ddress.com...
>>>> Isaiah Beard wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Buck Turgidson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am curious to know how cutting the cord has worked out for
>>>>>> those who've done it. We have 2 young children, and I am
>>>>>> wondering if it would work for us.
>>>>>
>>>>> So far, so good. No landline phone here for going on four years
>>>>> now, and haven't really missed it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The key to cutting the cord is making sure the cell coverage is
>>>>> VERY good where you live. As long as the signal is strong, most
>>>>> people won't even realize you're on a cell phone when they call
>>>>> you.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously, no need for a fax machine. Correct?
>>>>
>>>> Notan
>>>
>>> What the H does that have to do with it? There are many options for
>>> using fax with cellphones. There are even options for using a
>>> cellphone with the inhouse phone wiring so you can use any of the
>>> phones (and fax) in your home with the cellphone rather than a
>>> landline.
>>
>> Could be an issue. The fax machine will dial the number of the
>> far end fax machine. The cell phone/socket has no way of knowing
>> its a data call and will simply dial the number as a voice call.
>> When you use your cell phone as a modem/browser/etc. it is dialing
>> a special number which connects as a data call. It makes a
>> difference. Possibly codec, then VAD and maybe even ECAN, right?
>>
>> -Quick
>>
>>
>
> High speed modems will not work with cellphones (computer modems and
> CC machines), but a fax is much much slower (interestingly enough
> usually 9600 or 14,400 baud, does not use packet switching, but a
> direct connect, same speed as QWK2NET provides making direct calls to
> an ISP) and does not use data call parameters, it is a direct
> connection. There are two main types of connections, circuit switched
> and packet switched. A low speed (FAX or QWK2NET call) uses circuit
> switched, while the higher speed uses packet-switched (which is
> incompatible). Ever wonder why you can use QWK2NET at lower speeds
> the same as fax?

I agree the bandwidth is not an issue. I still suspect there is a
distinction
between voice and data connections. Either at the phone or the network
and probably both. For example your fax won't work if a compression
codec is used (well, most compression codecs). A data call will require
end-to-end bit exactness. A voice call does not and most often isn't.

So when you initiate a data call from your phone you (in effect) dial a
special number which lets the phone, and in turn, the network know
it's a data call (either circuit or switched). This (and/or the associated
parameters) gets propagated all the way to the far end terminating
equipment.
Currently, providers are doing aggregation in the core network so this
is relevant even after you get past the air interface.

With POTS a fax machine will dial a number and the network will set
up a voice call bearer path.
The fax will then (usually) send a 1100hz CNG to identify itself as a fax
machine.
The terminating fax machine will send/respond with a 2100hz tone.
Since the CNG is sort of iffy lots of network equipment ignores the CNG and
only detects the 2100hz tone. It is the 2100hz tone that definitely
identifies the
call as a data call (either fax or modem). (for completeness) the faxs will
then
turn on the V.21 preamble which is used by the network to distinguish a fax
from a modem.
So the network will initially set up a voice call and then convert it to a
data
call (usually on detection of the 2100hz).

With cell phones this is all done by dialing a magic phone number (Q2Net or
NA) or identifying the connection type as wireless modem. This tells your
phone it is a data call and not a voice call.

With something like a cell socket wouldn't you lose this information and
the cell phone would simply dial a number as a voice call?

-Quick
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 3:10:11 PM

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

> the most basic landline service usually around $18/month for emergency use
> only. Cellular phones are known to drop calls for no reasons, have


That sounds like a good compromise. I think our landline carrier has a plan
with a fixed number of outgoing calls. I just hate paying all these taxes
and fees that I can't begin to understand.
August 13, 2004 5:14:17 PM

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

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:41:14 -0700, "Quick"
<quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>Bob wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 18:05:42 GMT, Notan <notan@ddress.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Obviously, no need for a fax machine. Correct?
>>>
>>> Notan
>>
>> Yes, I have a need for a fax and I am a wireless only phone user. I
>> routinely send and receive fax's with my Verizon cell phone. A $15.00
>> data cord and WinFax pro was all it took to gain fax capabilities.
>
>What do you do for incoming faxes?

Incoming faxes are a bit of a kludge. I must know the fax is coming
in and have my cell phone "wired" to the running computer. Also with
WinFax Pro running. This is not a problem for me as almost all of my
faxes are outgoing. The people I deal with are accustomed to this as
when I was hard wired I did not have a dedicated fax line. They still
had to call ahead and tell me a fax would be coming in. Works good for
me, ymmv.
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 9:22:09 PM

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

O please, if you expect me to believe you have the "perfect" cell service
that has never dropped calls on you I think everyone here will find that
hard to believe. It's the nature of the network to do so.

"George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:evSdnTfsiLHAJoHcRVn-gg@adelphia.com...
>
> "Killer Madness" <killermike@qwerty.com> wrote in message
> news:KPYSc.66481$Pu4.20896@fe36.usenetserver.com...
> > 2 young children? Don't even think about getting rid of your landline.
> Keep
> > the most basic landline service usually around $18/month for emergency
use
> > only. Cellular phones are known to drop calls for no reasons, have
> > connection problems and when things are busy, have circuits busy a lot.
>
> Maybe yours does but I can even use mine in my concrete walled basement
and
> it doesn't drop calls and I haven't heard a circuit busy in at least 5
> years...
>
>
>
> > Since I do not have kids, I've dropped land line service for myself. I
> also
> > have programmed all emergency phone numbers into my address book if some
> > thing goes wrong. Of course my VoIP phone I use has all the appropriate
> > phone numbers it in also. With your kids, they're much more important
then
> > an extra land line hanging around.
> >
> > "Buck Turgidson" <jc_va@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:rdipu1-83s.ln1@hp.coleman.com...
> > > I am curious to know how cutting the cord has worked out for those
> who've
> > > done it. We have 2 young children, and I am wondering if it would
work
> > for
> > > us.
> > >
> > > I would probably buy a docking station like the one in the link below,
> so
> > we
> > > don't have to spend so much time on the cell phone itself.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.phonelabs.com/prd05.asp
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 9:45:53 PM

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

"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1092419279.614411@sj-nntpcache-3...
> Peter Pan wrote:
> > "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1092344789.777373@sj-nntpcache-3...
> >> Peter Pan wrote:
> >>> "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:411BB176.52483893@ddress.com...
> >>>> Isaiah Beard wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Buck Turgidson wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I am curious to know how cutting the cord has worked out for
> >>>>>> those who've done it. We have 2 young children, and I am
> >>>>>> wondering if it would work for us.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So far, so good. No landline phone here for going on four years
> >>>>> now, and haven't really missed it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The key to cutting the cord is making sure the cell coverage is
> >>>>> VERY good where you live. As long as the signal is strong, most
> >>>>> people won't even realize you're on a cell phone when they call
> >>>>> you.
> >>>>
> >>>> Obviously, no need for a fax machine. Correct?
> >>>>
> >>>> Notan
> >>>
> >>> What the H does that have to do with it? There are many options for
> >>> using fax with cellphones. There are even options for using a
> >>> cellphone with the inhouse phone wiring so you can use any of the
> >>> phones (and fax) in your home with the cellphone rather than a
> >>> landline.
> >>
> >> Could be an issue. The fax machine will dial the number of the
> >> far end fax machine. The cell phone/socket has no way of knowing
> >> its a data call and will simply dial the number as a voice call.
> >> When you use your cell phone as a modem/browser/etc. it is dialing
> >> a special number which connects as a data call. It makes a
> >> difference. Possibly codec, then VAD and maybe even ECAN, right?
> >>
> >> -Quick
> >>
> >>
> >
> > High speed modems will not work with cellphones (computer modems and
> > CC machines), but a fax is much much slower (interestingly enough
> > usually 9600 or 14,400 baud, does not use packet switching, but a
> > direct connect, same speed as QWK2NET provides making direct calls to
> > an ISP) and does not use data call parameters, it is a direct
> > connection. There are two main types of connections, circuit switched
> > and packet switched. A low speed (FAX or QWK2NET call) uses circuit
> > switched, while the higher speed uses packet-switched (which is
> > incompatible). Ever wonder why you can use QWK2NET at lower speeds
> > the same as fax?
>
> I agree the bandwidth is not an issue. I still suspect there is a
> distinction
> between voice and data connections. Either at the phone or the network
> and probably both. For example your fax won't work if a compression
> codec is used (well, most compression codecs). A data call will require
> end-to-end bit exactness. A voice call does not and most often isn't.
>
> So when you initiate a data call from your phone you (in effect) dial a
> special number which lets the phone, and in turn, the network know
> it's a data call (either circuit or switched). This (and/or the associated
> parameters) gets propagated all the way to the far end terminating
> equipment.
> Currently, providers are doing aggregation in the core network so this
> is relevant even after you get past the air interface.
>
> With POTS a fax machine will dial a number and the network will set
> up a voice call bearer path.
> The fax will then (usually) send a 1100hz CNG to identify itself as a fax
> machine.
> The terminating fax machine will send/respond with a 2100hz tone.
> Since the CNG is sort of iffy lots of network equipment ignores the CNG
and
> only detects the 2100hz tone. It is the 2100hz tone that definitely
> identifies the
> call as a data call (either fax or modem). (for completeness) the faxs
will
> then
> turn on the V.21 preamble which is used by the network to distinguish a
fax
> from a modem.
> So the network will initially set up a voice call and then convert it to a
> data
> call (usually on detection of the 2100hz).
>
> With cell phones this is all done by dialing a magic phone number (Q2Net
or
> NA) or identifying the connection type as wireless modem. This tells your
> phone it is a data call and not a voice call.
>
> With something like a cell socket wouldn't you lose this information and
> the cell phone would simply dial a number as a voice call?
>
> -Quick
>
>

Unfortunately your description above is way way wrong. There are actually
TWO types of calls Circuit switched and packet switched, and what you
describe above, while good for packet switched, doesn't even come close to
being correct for circuit switched, which is what a fax data call (or
qwk2net calling a 10 digit number instead of the "magic number") call will
be.

While you can always dial the "magic number" (usually #777), use the verizon
network and have it packet switched, you can ALSO, and always have been,
able to dial the actual 10 digit number and have it circuit switched! (works
differently and at a MUCH slower speed, actually 14.4 but some people think
it is 19.2 cuz that's the number that displays on the screen). Note dialing
the 10 digit number totally skips the verizon (computer not phone) network.
Anonymous
August 13, 2004 11:03:02 PM

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

Peter Pan wrote:
> "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1092419279.614411@sj-nntpcache-3...
>> Peter Pan wrote:
>>> "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1092344789.777373@sj-nntpcache-3...
>>>> Peter Pan wrote:
>>>>> "Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:411BB176.52483893@ddress.com...
>>>>>> Isaiah Beard wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Buck Turgidson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am curious to know how cutting the cord has worked out for
>>>>>>>> those who've done it. We have 2 young children, and I am
>>>>>>>> wondering if it would work for us.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So far, so good. No landline phone here for going on four years
>>>>>>> now, and haven't really missed it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The key to cutting the cord is making sure the cell coverage is
>>>>>>> VERY good where you live. As long as the signal is strong, most
>>>>>>> people won't even realize you're on a cell phone when they call
>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously, no need for a fax machine. Correct?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Notan
>>>>>
>>>>> What the H does that have to do with it? There are many options
>>>>> for using fax with cellphones. There are even options for using a
>>>>> cellphone with the inhouse phone wiring so you can use any of the
>>>>> phones (and fax) in your home with the cellphone rather than a
>>>>> landline.
>>>>
>>>> Could be an issue. The fax machine will dial the number of the
>>>> far end fax machine. The cell phone/socket has no way of knowing
>>>> its a data call and will simply dial the number as a voice call.
>>>> When you use your cell phone as a modem/browser/etc. it is dialing
>>>> a special number which connects as a data call. It makes a
>>>> difference. Possibly codec, then VAD and maybe even ECAN, right?
>>>>
>>>> -Quick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> High speed modems will not work with cellphones (computer modems and
>>> CC machines), but a fax is much much slower (interestingly enough
>>> usually 9600 or 14,400 baud, does not use packet switching, but a
>>> direct connect, same speed as QWK2NET provides making direct calls
>>> to an ISP) and does not use data call parameters, it is a direct
>>> connection. There are two main types of connections, circuit
>>> switched and packet switched. A low speed (FAX or QWK2NET call)
>>> uses circuit switched, while the higher speed uses packet-switched
>>> (which is incompatible). Ever wonder why you can use QWK2NET at
>>> lower speeds the same as fax?
>>
>> I agree the bandwidth is not an issue. I still suspect there is a
>> distinction
>> between voice and data connections. Either at the phone or the
>> network and probably both. For example your fax won't work if a
>> compression codec is used (well, most compression codecs). A data
>> call will require end-to-end bit exactness. A voice call does not
>> and most often isn't.
>>
>> So when you initiate a data call from your phone you (in effect)
>> dial a special number which lets the phone, and in turn, the network
>> know
>> it's a data call (either circuit or switched). This (and/or the
>> associated parameters) gets propagated all the way to the far end
>> terminating equipment.
>> Currently, providers are doing aggregation in the core network so
>> this
>> is relevant even after you get past the air interface.
>>
>> With POTS a fax machine will dial a number and the network will set
>> up a voice call bearer path.
>> The fax will then (usually) send a 1100hz CNG to identify itself as
>> a fax machine.
>> The terminating fax machine will send/respond with a 2100hz tone.
>> Since the CNG is sort of iffy lots of network equipment ignores the
>> CNG and only detects the 2100hz tone. It is the 2100hz tone that
>> definitely identifies the
>> call as a data call (either fax or modem). (for completeness) the
>> faxs will then
>> turn on the V.21 preamble which is used by the network to
>> distinguish a fax from a modem.
>> So the network will initially set up a voice call and then convert
>> it to a data
>> call (usually on detection of the 2100hz).
>>
>> With cell phones this is all done by dialing a magic phone number
>> (Q2Net or NA) or identifying the connection type as wireless modem.
>> This tells your phone it is a data call and not a voice call.
>>
>> With something like a cell socket wouldn't you lose this information
>> and the cell phone would simply dial a number as a voice call?
>>
>> -Quick
>>
>>
>
> Unfortunately your description above is way way wrong. There are
> actually TWO types of calls Circuit switched and packet switched, and
> what you describe above, while good for packet switched, doesn't even
> come close to being correct for circuit switched, which is what a fax
> data call (or qwk2net calling a 10 digit number instead of the "magic
> number") call will be.
>
> While you can always dial the "magic number" (usually #777), use the
> verizon network and have it packet switched, you can ALSO, and always
> have been, able to dial the actual 10 digit number and have it
> circuit switched! (works differently and at a MUCH slower speed,
> actually 14.4 but some people think it is 19.2 cuz that's the number
> that displays on the screen). Note dialing the 10 digit number
> totally skips the verizon (computer not phone) network.

Ok... (thinking aloud) When you make a voice call dialing through
the phone keypad, a new CDMA phone is likely to use EVRC for
the codec. EVRC is a variable rate *compression* codec that usually
runs at around 8K. Clearly not good for fax/modem. When you make
a normal voice call with your cell phone dialing a normal 10-digit number
where does it go? My assumption was that it was circuit switched?
If this is true how does the far end know whether to decode using EVRC
or not?

Is this where I'm confused?

Is it the case that since a cell socket type of thing plugs into the serial
port on a phone that *all* outgoing calls will be made as "data" calls?

-Quick
August 13, 2004 11:23:49 PM

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

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:22:09 -0400, "Killer Madness"
<killermike@qwerty.com> wrote:

>O please, if you expect me to believe you have the "perfect" cell service
>that has never dropped calls on you I think everyone here will find that
>hard to believe. It's the nature of the network to do so.

Since I have had mobile service which is over four years I can count
on one hand the number of times I have had a dropped call.

Even the wireline networks don't offer 100% reliability.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 12:28:33 AM

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

"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1092449118.35666@sj-nntpcache-3...
> Ok... (thinking aloud) When you make a voice call dialing through
> the phone keypad, a new CDMA phone is likely to use EVRC for
> the codec. EVRC is a variable rate *compression* codec that usually
> runs at around 8K. Clearly not good for fax/modem. When you make
> a normal voice call with your cell phone dialing a normal 10-digit number
> where does it go? My assumption was that it was circuit switched?
> If this is true how does the far end know whether to decode using EVRC
> or not?
>
> Is this where I'm confused?
>
> Is it the case that since a cell socket type of thing plugs into the
serial
> port on a phone that *all* outgoing calls will be made as "data" calls?
>
> -Quick
>
>

My understanding is that when the call gets ready to actually dial-out to
the ISP/fax from verizon, software (at the verizon end) senses data (some
bit is set in the packet and no decompression is used) and uses a modem to
actually make the call instead of a voice only (no modem) line. Best
scenario that I heard and can relate to, was think of a computer network
with a dial out modem somewhere. While it is normally digital/packets for
data and network stuff, sent willy nilly from one computer to another, at
the modem end, software turns the digital packets back into an analog data
stream and gives it to the modem (while the carrier detect sensor is tied to
whether the network is up or not). For more technical stuff, I had heard
that at the phone end, the codec is disabled when a data call (going thru
the connector and using the phone as a modem) is made, and a bit is set in
the packet marking it as data not to be decompressed, in both circuit
switched or packet.

Not sure about the cellsocket, but I have seen/used the rs232 port on a
phonecell for fax.

But there is one misconception that i may be able to help on. The connector
at the bottom of the phone is just that, an electrical connector. While the
same connections in a different order can be used as serial, there are also
other connections in that same connector (ever use an external speakerphone
box? that uses the connections for audio information instead of the other
ones for serial). Serial itself only requires about 2 of the 10 or so
connections on the bottom of the phone, the rest are for other purposes
(charging, audio etc). Ever play on computers? Wonder about a DB-25 and DB-9
and USB? They all have different numbers of connectors, but can all transfer
data. Why can they all do essentially the same thing, but with different
numbers of connectors?
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 5:13:49 AM

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

4 years of service and less then 5 dropped calls? Dude, the odds are
extreme...it's possible, but not believable if you ask me. I find it very
difficult to believe or you just don't use your phone much at all? I mean
god bless and good for you...but if I ever told some one that, they'd think
I was lying for sure.

"Joseph" <JoeOfSeattle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2stqh0purvg6f8c1ikkk5ivog50l5kb8cr@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 17:22:09 -0400, "Killer Madness"
> <killermike@qwerty.com> wrote:
>
> >O please, if you expect me to believe you have the "perfect" cell service
> >that has never dropped calls on you I think everyone here will find that
> >hard to believe. It's the nature of the network to do so.
>
> Since I have had mobile service which is over four years I can count
> on one hand the number of times I have had a dropped call.
>
> Even the wireline networks don't offer 100% reliability.
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> remove NONO from .NONOcom to reply
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 9:21:42 AM

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

Killer Madness wrote:
>
> 4 years of service and less then 5 dropped calls? Dude, the odds are
> extreme...it's possible, but not believable if you ask me. I find it very
> difficult to believe or you just don't use your phone much at all? I mean
> god bless and good for you...but if I ever told some one that, they'd think
> I was lying for sure.

I've never lost an Olympic event! <g>

Notan
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 9:21:43 AM

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

"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
news:411DA165.521AEE14@ddress.com...
> Killer Madness wrote:
> >
> > 4 years of service and less then 5 dropped calls? Dude, the odds are
> > extreme...it's possible, but not believable if you ask me. I find it
very
> > difficult to believe or you just don't use your phone much at all? I
mean
> > god bless and good for you...but if I ever told some one that, they'd
think
> > I was lying for sure.
>
> I've never lost an Olympic event! <g>
>
> Notan

So you finished FIRST in every event you entered. );o
Anonymous
August 14, 2004 10:37:05 PM

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

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:27:04 -0400, "David G."
<david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> chose to add this to the great
equation of life, the universe, and everything:

> keep your land line
>for $35/month.

$35?!?!?!?!?!!!!

My landline, with some usage, is around $20/month.

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"That is true -- but not absolutely true." - Jean Drapeau, Montreal mayor
August 14, 2004 11:57:52 PM

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

I have 4 kids and I chose to cut the cord after the latest rate
increase. However, we got tired of always having to charge batteries
or flossing connections due to low batteries. Since, We added Vonage
for $29.99 which is voice over IP. for your $29 you get unlimited long
distance, local calls and every bell & whistle you can imagine.

Rico

You may reply to spacemanjerry@hotmailNOT.com
Just remove the NOT from the addy

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 09:09:11 -0400, "Buck Turgidson"
<jc_va@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I am curious to know how cutting the cord has worked out for those who've
>done it. We have 2 young children, and I am wondering if it would work for
>us.
>
>I would probably buy a docking station like the one in the link below, so we
>don't have to spend so much time on the cell phone itself.
>
>
>
>http://www.phonelabs.com/prd05.asp
>
August 15, 2004 3:47:17 PM

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

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 18:37:05 GMT, David S
<dwstreeter@spamisnaughty.att.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:27:04 -0400, "David G."
><david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> chose to add this to the great
>equation of life, the universe, and everything:
>
>> keep your land line
>>for $35/month.
>
>$35?!?!?!?!?!!!!
>
>My landline, with some usage, is around $20/month.


The basic line here without any options is about $24, but then you
have to add about $6 in taxes and fees, so now its about $30. If you
want caller id or call waiting, now we are talking $35 or so.
Anonymous
August 15, 2004 5:14:11 PM

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

David S wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:27:04 -0400, "David G."
> <david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> chose to add this to the
> great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
>
>> keep your land line
>> for $35/month.
>
> $35?!?!?!?!?!!!!
>
> My landline, with some usage, is around $20/month.

I have voice mail and caller id/call waiting. I can't see how Verizon
would sell me a line for $20 with all those features...

Who do you use?


--
David G.
Anonymous
August 15, 2004 7:44:10 PM

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

Peter Pan wrote:
> "Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1092419279.614411@sj-nntpcache-3...
>
>>Peter Pan wrote:
>>
>>>"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1092344789.777373@sj-nntpcache-3...
>>>
>>>>Peter Pan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:411BB176.52483893@ddress.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Isaiah Beard wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Buck Turgidson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I am curious to know how cutting the cord has worked out for
>>>>>>>>those who've done it. We have 2 young children, and I am
>>>>>>>>wondering if it would work for us.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So far, so good. No landline phone here for going on four years
>>>>>>>now, and haven't really missed it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The key to cutting the cord is making sure the cell coverage is
>>>>>>>VERY good where you live. As long as the signal is strong, most
>>>>>>>people won't even realize you're on a cell phone when they call
>>>>>>>you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Obviously, no need for a fax machine. Correct?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Notan
>>>>>
>>>>>What the H does that have to do with it? There are many options for
>>>>>using fax with cellphones. There are even options for using a
>>>>>cellphone with the inhouse phone wiring so you can use any of the
>>>>>phones (and fax) in your home with the cellphone rather than a
>>>>>landline.
>>>>
>>>>Could be an issue. The fax machine will dial the number of the
>>>>far end fax machine. The cell phone/socket has no way of knowing
>>>>its a data call and will simply dial the number as a voice call.
>>>>When you use your cell phone as a modem/browser/etc. it is dialing
>>>>a special number which connects as a data call. It makes a
>>>>difference. Possibly codec, then VAD and maybe even ECAN, right?
>>>>
>>>>-Quick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>High speed modems will not work with cellphones (computer modems and
>>>CC machines), but a fax is much much slower (interestingly enough
>>>usually 9600 or 14,400 baud, does not use packet switching, but a
>>>direct connect, same speed as QWK2NET provides making direct calls to
>>>an ISP) and does not use data call parameters, it is a direct
>>>connection. There are two main types of connections, circuit switched
>>>and packet switched. A low speed (FAX or QWK2NET call) uses circuit
>>>switched, while the higher speed uses packet-switched (which is
>>>incompatible). Ever wonder why you can use QWK2NET at lower speeds
>>>the same as fax?
>>
>>I agree the bandwidth is not an issue. I still suspect there is a
>>distinction
>>between voice and data connections. Either at the phone or the network
>>and probably both. For example your fax won't work if a compression
>>codec is used (well, most compression codecs). A data call will require
>>end-to-end bit exactness. A voice call does not and most often isn't.
>>
>>So when you initiate a data call from your phone you (in effect) dial a
>>special number which lets the phone, and in turn, the network know
>>it's a data call (either circuit or switched). This (and/or the associated
>>parameters) gets propagated all the way to the far end terminating
>>equipment.
>>Currently, providers are doing aggregation in the core network so this
>>is relevant even after you get past the air interface.
>>
>>With POTS a fax machine will dial a number and the network will set
>>up a voice call bearer path.
>>The fax will then (usually) send a 1100hz CNG to identify itself as a fax
>>machine.
>>The terminating fax machine will send/respond with a 2100hz tone.
>>Since the CNG is sort of iffy lots of network equipment ignores the CNG
>
> and
>
>>only detects the 2100hz tone. It is the 2100hz tone that definitely
>>identifies the
>>call as a data call (either fax or modem). (for completeness) the faxs
>
> will
>
>>then
>>turn on the V.21 preamble which is used by the network to distinguish a
>
> fax
>
>>from a modem.
>>So the network will initially set up a voice call and then convert it to a
>>data
>>call (usually on detection of the 2100hz).
>>
>>With cell phones this is all done by dialing a magic phone number (Q2Net
>
> or
>
>>NA) or identifying the connection type as wireless modem. This tells your
>>phone it is a data call and not a voice call.
>>
>>With something like a cell socket wouldn't you lose this information and
>>the cell phone would simply dial a number as a voice call?
>>
>>-Quick
>>
>>
>
>
> Unfortunately your description above is way way wrong. There are actually
> TWO types of calls Circuit switched and packet switched, and what you
> describe above, while good for packet switched, doesn't even come close to
> being correct for circuit switched, which is what a fax data call (or
> qwk2net calling a 10 digit number instead of the "magic number") call will
> be.
>
> While you can always dial the "magic number" (usually #777), use the verizon
> network and have it packet switched, you can ALSO, and always have been,
> able to dial the actual 10 digit number and have it circuit switched! (works
> differently and at a MUCH slower speed, actually 14.4 but some people think
> it is 19.2 cuz that's the number that displays on the screen). Note dialing
> the 10 digit number totally skips the verizon (computer not phone) network.

Not quite. When you make a regular "modem call" (or fax call for that
matter) the handset/pcmcia card DOES NOT PROCESS THE MODEM TONES AT ALL.
The DSP in the Verizon CO switch actually does the 'beeps and tones',
your handset simply gets the raw data interpreted over the link...

You'll also notice the handset will *FALL OFF* a circuit switched data
call instantly at the first hint of bad signal. Packet switched will
simply just buffer the packets in (at the switch/router) and out (in
your handset) until signal returns. I've 'maintained' IRC, AIM, MSN,
etc sessions through 3-5 minutes of total 'no service' (and no data
passed) with the packet data session still open.

Heres my analogy for the situation:

Circuit Switched == Modem/ISDN
Packet Switched == Frame Relay

JS
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 2:58:16 AM

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

IMHO wrote:
> Just got a bill from SBC.
> Noticed a $1.00 charge for SBC long distance plus taxes.
> Called and was told they redid their LD plans.

On my SBC landline I have the simplest plan. There is no LD
carrier or local toll. Local calls are charged for (2c first
minute, 1c thereafter) with the first $3 free. The monthly
bill is $5 plus another $6 in taxes, surchages and other
ripoffs. There is no charge for toll free calls. I thought
they offered this everywhere.

In reality I normally manage about 11 minutes a month of local
calls on the landline. Most others are during the evenings
and weekends on the cell.

I then use a calling card I got from Costco for all LD and local
toll calls on the landline. I also use it for international
calls from my cell phone.

Roger
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 8:02:33 AM

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

On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 13:14:11 -0400, "David G."
<david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> chose to add this to the great
equation of life, the universe, and everything:

>David S wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:27:04 -0400, "David G."
>> <david_please_dont_email_me@i_hate_spam.com> chose to add this to the
>> great equation of life, the universe, and everything:
>>
>>> keep your land line
>>> for $35/month.
>>
>> $35?!?!?!?!?!!!!
>>
>> My landline, with some usage, is around $20/month.
>
>I have voice mail and caller id/call waiting. I can't see how Verizon
>would sell me a line for $20 with all those features...
>
>Who do you use?

SBC, but I don't have any extras. In questioning the rate as high as $35, I
was assuming a bare bones account with no extras and little usage, since we
were talking about a backup to a cell phone.

My current SBC (originally Illinois Bell) bill:

Line charge: 9.00
Federal Access Charge: 4.49

Local calls:
0-8 miles:
35 at day rate 1.58
5 at evening rate .15
45 at night/wknd rate 1.35
over 8 miles:
24 at day rate 1.08 <mostly to my cell>
1 at evening rate .03
11 at night/wknd rate .33

[city] 9-1-1 fee: .50
State Infrastructure Maintenance Fee: .09
State Additional Charges: .01
Infrastructure Maintenance Credit: .79CR
Number portability surcharge: .18
Federal universal service fee: .41
IL universal service fee: .03
IL telecom relay svc and eqp: .07

Taxes:
Federal at 3%: .51
Illinois at 7%: 1.20
Municipal telecommunications tax: .86

Total SBC local service charges: 20.42

Long distance:
1 in-state call, 2 min.: .10
Taxes: .01 <breakdown shows it as municipal>
Monthly service charge FR promo: .00

Total amount due:

$20.53 if paid on or before Sep. 2, 2004
$20.82 if paid after Sep. 2, 2004

--
David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
Remove the naughty bit from my address to reply
Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
"We're all tired. But we WILL go on with Halloween, darn it. That's the
kind of nation we are." - Dave Barry
Anonymous
August 16, 2004 8:50:59 AM

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

"IMHO" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:_MWTc.20948$Yl.12362@okepread07...
> I told the CSR I wanted the NO $ per month & $0.10 per min plan.
> She asked if I was sure I wanted to change to that plan.
> Looked like a no brainer to me....

Or just switch to another long-distance company for even lower rates with no
monthly fee.

Wonder why we can't change international-call carrier on cellular plans.
Anonymous
August 18, 2004 5:37:04 AM

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

Buck Turgidson writes:
> I am curious to know how cutting the cord has worked out for those who've
> done it. We have 2 young children, and I am wondering if it would work for
> us.

My wife and I have three sons, all out of the house now. We went to cell
only in June (we each have our own number), and so far things have gone
very well. The nicest thing: no more telemarketers calling.

--
Theodore (Ted) Heise <theo@heise.nu> Bloomington, IN, USA
Anonymous
August 18, 2004 6:59:09 AM

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

Theodore Heise wrote:
>
> Buck Turgidson writes:
> > I am curious to know how cutting the cord has worked out for those who've
> > done it. We have 2 young children, and I am wondering if it would work for
> > us.
>
> My wife and I have three sons, all out of the house now. We went to cell
> only in June (we each have our own number), and so far things have gone
> very well. The nicest thing: no more telemarketers calling.

While I'm not sure where things stand, as of late, there's been much
discussion concerning cellular providers selling their customer data-
bases to third parties.

Notan
August 18, 2004 10:12:21 AM

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

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 04:12:16 GMT, Louise <none@nospam.com> wrote:

>They regularly fax prescriptions, test results etc., to me. When I am
>asked to fax things (I have to deal with managed care companies for
>work), I use a flatbed and Winfax Pro.
>
>If one didn't have a landline, it seems you simply wouldn't be able to
>send and receive faxes. Is there another way to do this?

There are email to fax gateways. There used to be a few free ones,
but I'm not sure if they're available these days. To receive there
are several companies some (such as efax) you can get for free in
exchange for receiving periodic advertising and provided you don't
receive a whole lot of faxes or many multi-page faxes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anonymous
August 19, 2004 6:04:13 AM

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

When using your digital VZW phone as a modem, the modem emulation software
in the phone initiates a data connection, and the digital data from the
computer/PDA is sent as digital data over the air to the VZW switch. When
your computer issues the "dial" modem command, the equipment at VZW will
either pass the command to modems to make an ordinary landline phone
call to your ISP, or, if the magic #777 number is used, it puts the data
directly onto the Internet. In the former case, the digital data is only
then converted to tones and sent over the landline system. Tones cannot be
sent over the ordinary voice air protocol, since, as has been mentioned,
lossy compression techniques are used. Besides, you are using a digital
air interface, why use kludgy tones to send digital data?

The phone can also emulate a FAX modem, so you can send FAXes from your
computer. Same idea.

Now, if you have a device which allows you to hook ordinary phones to your
cell phone, the device is generally going to tell the phone to set up a
voice call. The problem with doing FAX is that the FAX machine is going
to dial like an ordinary phone, and after the connection is made, is it
going to send the FAX tones. Too late for the device to convert the FAX
tones back to digital and tell the phone to set up a FAX-type data call.

The key point is that data (computer dialup or FAX) using a digital phone
is set up differently, starting with the phone initiating a different
kind of call, and not converting to tones, if necessary, until the data
is in the VZW network.

BTW, this is why dialing #777 from your phone's keypad gives an error
message. #777 is a pseudo-number valid only for data calls.
Tom’s guide in the world
  • Germany
  • France
  • Italy
  • Ireland
  • UK
Follow Tom’s guide
Subscribe to our newsletter
  • add to twitter
  • add to facebook
  • ajouter un flux RSS