Comcast Lying About Vonage 390
jehnx writes, "Apparently, Comcast is trying some new tricks to get people to sign up for its version of VoIP, 'Comcast Digital Voice,' according to Wang (of WangScript fame). From the blog post: 'Today my wife received a phone call from a Comcast representative who had called to promote their new "Comcast Digital Voice" service... Ordinarily, we don't mind Comcast calling us from time to time with new offers... [but this time] they proceeded to tell LIE after LIE in an attempt to convince us that Vonage was not as good as Comcast Digital Voice. Imagine how many people would be scared into using Comcast Digital Voice because Comcast makes them believe that Vonage is insecure and only works when your PC is turned on.' Is Comcast going a bit far in their techniques to lure in new customers?"
Vonage isn't secure (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Vonage isn't secure (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Vonage isn't secure (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Vonage isn't secure (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually it's slightly more secure only because SS7 is a simple protocol compared to SIP (tunneled of course). It's also more secure in that a non-authorized person (like a private investigator) could not tap a VoIP connection without gaining entry to the premises. A POTS connection can be tapped by anybody who can access your line (anywhere). Comcast's VoIP likely uses similar technology to Vonage and so is probably just as secure.
Define "secure"? POTS/DSL/Vonage-on-DSL has an inherent level of security and reliability above cable/cable-VoIP/vonage-on-cable because telco technology is [b]circuit based[/b]. Your line isn't dependant on a shared RF medium that can potently be snooped/jammed/interfered with by anybody else on the same node. Doubt that? Then explain why it took Time Warner six months to figure out that the problem with my Roadrunner service was a friggen 45 year old TV down the block leaking RF onto the cable plant? Had I TW's digital phone/vonage I would have been royally screwed. I can't recall the last time that my POTS/DSL service was taken down by a 45 year old phone next door....
Anybody that relies on VoIP service over a cable connection is insane. My DSL service is circuit based and survives just about anything including power outages. My cable service doesn't even survive thunderstorms and dies during power outages, presumably because the repeaters aren't line powered.
Cable is secure (Score:3, Insightful)
From the BPI+ spec:
So an HFC network with BPI+ implemented affords more security than a POTS/DSL line since it is encrypted from end to end.
You've obviously never had static/poor call quality on your POTS line. You are lucky.
Also, PacketCable can [arstechnica.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Vonage isn't secure (Score:5, Insightful)
DSL is a bit of a challenge, too. However, DSL can be monitored from other pairs in the same trunk just like a cable modem. (listen for weak cross-talk.) The DSL physical layer isn't scrambled at all, so if you can see the signal (no matter how weak), it can be decoded with ease.
The PSTN ceased to be truly circuit switched decades ago. It's been digitized, packet switching for a long time. The only circuit is in the "last mile" from the CO to CPE. And more often than not these days, your copper wires don't even go all the way back to the CO; they go to a multiplexer. (or "remote DSLAM" if we're talking DSL.)
As to which is "secure"... neither. POTS/DSL is easiest to sniff if you're willing to sneak around to plant a physical tap -- on the NID or any of the boxes on down the line, right down to breaking into the DSLAM itself. Cable just requires you be somewhere in the neighborhood (no sneaking required), and willing to sift through a lot of noise to find one specific modem's traffic.
On the issue of power, both DSL and cable are endpoint powered. If your house loses power, your modem will stop working. It doesn't matter if it's a DSL modem or a Cable modem. Telco's may have more experience with keeping their equipment powered, but they aren't going to give a shit if the DSLAM loses power during a storm; they'll only care about keeping "lifeline" services (read: POTS) functional. That DSLAM in the cabinet at the top of the hill doesn't have a generator backing it up.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Its too bad (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
slander (Score:2)
It's not "false advertising", it's slander.
It's not.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Shaw Cable does this in Canada. They drop in another cable modem and wire your phonelines up to the cable modem (which has VoIP capabilities); the one significant advantage is they also install a rechargeable battery pack and off some service level guarantees.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know that time warner does this as well not exactly sure if comcast does it, but I can't imagine they would be that much diffrent from one cable company to another.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's not.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm shocked, shocked... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm shocked, shocked... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I'm shocked, shocked... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm shocked, shocked... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their routers also prioritize voice traffic if they are able to.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In addition, even if you're attempting to use QOS on their equipment, the Comcast network probably ignores it anyways. They wouldn't have any reason to prioritize Vonage traffic - the only downfall is that they could possibly degrade your service if they
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's funny is that I've driven by Comcast facilities... They use multiple satellite dishes. Looks like they get their signals from Satellite and then send the signals over their own ground-based network...... In that context, they should be pretty careful about criticizing dish-based reception.....
Re:I'm shocked, shocked... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that a 12", $100 dish doesn't perform the same in the rain as the 100', multi-million dollar dishes Comcast uses.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I'm shocked, shocked... (Score:4, Funny)
Customer Service? (Score:2, Interesting)
They were always responsive for me (Score:2)
I suppose they probably got rid of that when they grew.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Think about it... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Why did this posting make it through?)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Think about it... (Score:5, Insightful)
He probably works for Vonage, and is trying to hurt Comcast's reputation.
On a more serious note, I've talked to many customer service reps who didn't know what they are talking about. I don't know that you can call it lying, it is perfectly possible this guy thought these things were true. Or maybe this guy is just a jerk who will be in the unemployment lines in a few weeks (every company has these, probably even Vonage). Bottom line is, you can't trust someone who calls you up during dinner to try to sell you a product. Just as you can't trust a single blogger that claims Comcast is running a massive campaign of disinformation because of a single experience.
Re: (Score:2)
there will always been sales people who will lie to make the sale. does this mean it's company policy? no.
Hate to say it by Comcast is partially correct (Score:5, Informative)
They are selling a full DQOS phone service. This means that that there is full QOS when on their network. You are guaranteed that you will have the bandwidth for the telephone call. This cannot be said when you are using Vonage. Vonage over a DOCSIS connection is strictly best effort, meaning that you voice packets have no more priority on the line than you neighbors downloads. This will (if it does not already) mean that you will have inferior quality on a Vonage phone vs. the Comcast solution. Also with DQOS from Comcast you get priority for any 911 call. You cannot get this from Vonage.
Disclosure - I do work in the cable industry but for a equipment vendor not Comcast.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
MacOS RULEZ!!!
Really? Net Neutrality already broken? (Score:2, Interesting)
This means that that there is full QOS when on their network. You are guaranteed that you will have the bandwidth for the telephone call. This cannot be said when you are using Vonage.
So, you work for an equipment vendor that's busy setting up "QOS" equipment that will bump off competing VOIP traffic for "downloads" but not Comcasts? Would you say that Comcast is setting up equipment that's currently against the law? That's exactly the sort of anti-competitive behavior everyone worried about net neutr
Re:Really? Net Neutrality already broken? (Score:5, Informative)
DOCSIS has excellent QoS support. It supports what are called "Service Flows" when the modem is provisioned in DOCSIS 1.1 mode. Essentially, a service flow creates a secondary pipe to the CMTS that is completely independant of the other ones. Thus, there would be a second service flow, provisioned for 64 or 128Kbps, used only for VoIP, which has a higher priority than the data flow.
When using cable modem service, traffic from Vonage unfortunately falls into the "data" pipe, and therefore gets jumbled with the rest.
I don't feel that Comcast is being anti-competitive at all, they're using a feature of the DOCSIS specification that cable operators devised and use. Perhaps you need to take your case to CableLabs (and get laughed out by them).
-- Joe
Re:Hate to say it by Comcast is partially correct (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you really care.... (Score:3, Insightful)
If they really are telling lies and they are really using fear mongering instead of honest product comparisons, then contact your fair trading /comsumer protections/ whatever offices instead. Alternatively just contact Vonage and tell them this happened and ask for their help.
Here on old /. a few people will try to pull a few funny points etc, but nothing concrete will happen.
I work for a small cable company... (Score:5, Interesting)
"Vonage requires an internet connection, we do not"
"Vonage routes their calls over the public internet, which may result in poorer quality or dropped calls, we route calls over our private cable network"
"Vonage has a national 911 call center, we route 911 locally in your county"
"We are a local call center, where with Vonage, you may get routed to a call center in East India"
While I'm not exactly a fan of Comcast, its all too easy to get a lone CSR (in any company) who really doesnt know what he/she is talking about and will say just about anything to win back customers.
Heh, the confermation/security word I had to type to post this was "exploit".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You have a different definition of "fact" from me.
"Vonage requires an internet connection, we do not"
Fine, Vonage requires an internet hookup. If you don't have one, Vonage isn't for you. Next!
"Vonage routes their calls over the public internet, which may result in poorer quality or dropped calls, we route calls over our private cable network"
Never had a dropped call on Vonage. Never had bad line quality. I've been using it for 2 ye
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have Teliax which allows me to use Asterisk at home for my phone service
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's easy for most other people to understand that what is meant is that you don't need to buy separate internet service to use their VOIP service. Why one would buy VoIP from a cable provider and not get Internet, I'm not totally sure.
Also, using IP doesn't have to mean Internet. It's easily possible to make wide area IP network without that network ever routing their data over the internet, and at some poin
Re: (Score:2)
The auto industry does this... (Score:5, Funny)
"Hi, I'm the electric car.
I can't go very fast or drive very far.
And if you drive me, people will think you're gay.
Gay men: 'One of us! One of us!'"
Even Worse Experience! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Dirty tricks not new (Score:2)
And for those using Vonage with an ISP such as Comcast that offers a competing service, you haven't seen anything yet. The whole "net neutrality" argument hasn't even begun yet. Just wait until Vonage service starts getting worse while the competitors tout "better service" and such.
As a Vonage customer, I will say that I'm not totally satisfied. There are times when someone calls that I can hear them, b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No they don't. They (and me) don't think ISPs have any right to double-dip. I pay for my network connection. If Time Warner attempts to solicit extra fees from Vonage for higher priority packet delivery on top of what I pay for the connection, that doesn't make sense no matter how you argue it. The other way of looking at it is that at that point, I'm no longer paying for internet service, but rather some subset that is defined by
Re: (Score:2)
I call BS (Score:4, Insightful)
Comcast has every reason to be underhanded in their dealings with Vonage customers, and not much reason to be worried. Lets guess who spends lots of money in Washington D.C.? Vonage? or maybe its Comcast that spends more?
Verizon is also not trying to play nice either. They only want to offer good deals if you buy bundled services. This is business in the USA.
The whole argument about security is false, misleading, and only made to confuse customers... trouble is the media gets confused too.
It doesn't matter what voice service you use, it is susceptible to interception, end of story. The only thing that you can hope to do is make it more difficult to intercept it. Military grade encryption end-to-end is not available, and the US government won't allow it to be used anyway if they can at all prevent its use. (think of the children, or think of the terrorists) So the argument about which VoIP service is secure is a totally mute point.
Blog whoring (Score:2)
I for one am shocked! (Score:2)
Verizon FIOS (Score:3, Interesting)
So glad there's finally some real competition for Comcast. I guess it takes one monopoly to take down another monopoly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's called an oligopoly and in the long run, it is not much different from a monopoly market.
FTC Fines Are Laughable for Deceptive Adverts (Score:4, Insightful)
On the bright side, Vonage is a big company too, and thus they can afford to play the deceptive ad game too
Old fashioned POTS (plain old telephone service) providers have Vonage beat, since POTS works even when the cable, internet, power, etc go out
Ron
Re: (Score:2)
VoIP only as good as your connection (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
In my apartment, the only time it was down was if the power for the whole complex was out. That happened twice in three years, thanks to some severe storms.
Now, in my house (maybe 7 miles from the apartments) over the past three years it's been out ONCE for an extended period. I think that was about 45 minutes - and was because the buried main feeder cable (their BIG one, not the
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Every place that I've lived had spotty high speed internet connection. It was up MOST of the time but there were definitely periods here and there where it would go out and be a bit before it came back on. Most people are used to much greater reliability with their phone lines.
Get off the cable network. I've had DSL (speakeasy) and fttp (verizon) service that never goes down.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing New (Score:3, Insightful)
People break rules, even if the company has policy in place.
Actually saying or Implying? (Score:2)
Never atribute to malice... (Score:5, Informative)
What about QoS? (Score:2)
Nick
Big deal (Score:2)
Show me a corporation and i'll show you a liar. (Score:2)
VOIP in Silicon Valley (Score:2)
I mean, the whole advertising in the South Bay for Triple Play when their VOIP isn't available in Sunnyvale *or* Mountain View... that's not false advertising either.
Going a bit far? (Score:2)
Lanham Act (Score:4, Interesting)
IANAL, but _these guys are_
http://www.poznaklaw.com/articles/falsead.htm [poznaklaw.com] (horrid seersucker background, but they're spot on)
If this is true, then Comcast is _hosed_ and I would cheer on Vonage's lawsuit.
--
BMO
Security issues true... (Score:4, Informative)
Comcast probably suffers from the exact same problem, although the traffic is probably not traversing multiple provider's networks the way Vonage is and therefore the danger should in theory be less.
Today comcast, tomorrow at&t (Score:2)
Of course, on the other side of the aisle is Vonage, and frankly I'd rather roll my own and get the increased feature set that something like
WangScript fame? (Score:3, Funny)
See, you're driving a Yugo... (Score:3, Interesting)
My wife and I were at a local festival, and Comcast had a booth. I had to figure out why they could have the balls to advertise $40/month for what sounded like the same thing as Vonage. I told the rep that I was a Vonage customer, and I was willing to listen to his schpiel. "See, you're driving a Yugo, and what we've got here is a Lexus!" Uh huh.. So, what makes it a Lexus? He rattles off some features. Vonage includes every one of them. Oh, and Vonage includes calls to Canada and Western Europe. Hmm?
"See, you're driving a Yugo, and what we've got here is a Lexus!"
I thought I gave him a fair shot, and he had no actual arguments or points to make. I'll stay with Vonage, thanks much.
Comcast is chock full of lying goodness (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Called and was told they were doing work in my area; that service would be restored in "a couple hours." The next day it was still out. While heading out to the car I noticed that the line to the house had become disconnected. I got a ladder, plugged it back in, and it worked fine.
2) Called and was told, again, they were doing work in my area; that service would be restored in "a couple hours." Called again when service was still out the next day. Was told they would send a person out -- this entailed a ten day wait. When the service guy arrived, he told me that the line splitter on the street was not only corroded but had been installed backward. Not sure how that's possible, but there it is.
3) Called and was told, yet again, they were doing work in my area; that service would be restored in "a couple hours." Ten minutes later I reset all my equipment and everything worked fine.
Fact is, "work in my area" is apparently a lie common to call center vermin. And Comcast doesn't care that they do this. Lovely.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In any case, your question is utterly obtuse. I pay these people a lot of money for service, and I don't appreciate being lied to. You frame it like customer service is a huge drag on their business, but as someone who runs a small design shop, I can tell you that customer service *is* your business no matter what line of
Be serious! (Score:3, Insightful)
Not just Vonage. (Score:5, Informative)
Whenever a customer calls complaining about voice quality, it's almost always latency or some other issue with their connection; VoIP is, as you can guess, very sensitive to connection quality.
Comcast has been one of the worst for us, though other cable providers aren't much better (Time Warner, I'm looking in your direction). I cannot prove it, but I'm certain Comcast is doing some sort of traffic shaping for VoIP packets not their own, and it wreaks havoc with my company and many others, because we can't do anything for the customer except tell them "take it up with your ISP".
I think we all know what the ISP's invariable reaction is. Some tier-one flunky goes "Yup, signal looks good! No problems here!" and the customer comes back to us and there's nothing we can do about it. It doesn't matter how many pingtests, traceroutes, or other measures you offer them -- the cable companies have been notoriously unhelpful in getting their act together. Worse still they'll offer outlandish suggestions to the user, like "getting a static IP might help" or "upgrade your connection to six megs", neither of which will do a damn thing (well, the latter might, but it's not likely that bandwidth is the problem).
Now I admit that part of this is that VoIP over public residential/business connections is purely "best effort", especially the RTP stream is delivered via UDP which most ISPs and backbone providers consider less important than TCP. Contrawise, Comcast and other integrated providers can QoS their own VoIP packets any way they like. But for an ISP to leverage this fact to spread misinformation or misrepresent what is actually going on is totally ridiculous.
Part of the problem is that most people really don't know anything about computers or the internet. They'll tell you "but I have a fast connection! It's three megs!" because they don't understand the difference between latency and bandwidth, or they'll point out that their email and websites load really quickly. From this end-user's point of view there's nothing wrong with their connection that should cause their VoIP phone to suck, because "everything else works", and I partially agree with them -- they shouldn't have to constantly harrass their ISP to stop screwing around. (My disagreement is my cynicism of caveat emptor, and it wouldn't kill people to know a little something about how the service works, at the very least so they know to whom to complain when something goes wrong. In essence they're bringing a car to the mechanic complaining that the ride is bumpy, when the problem is the road outside their house is full of potholes.)
But even my cynicism has limits -- as a matter of fact I had to go through this same crap with my home cable provider, Charter, and it took nearly two weeks for me to get them to deal with the problem. Keep in mind that's someone like me, who knows what he's talking about, who is in IT, who can provide useful information about where the problem lies, and knows to whom to speak and how to phrase the problem to get results. What is your average user supposed to do, when they don't know anything about this stuff?
When it gets to that point, and the ISP is telling them things like "reboot the computer!", the user sees only a few choices -- get a new ISP, or get a new VoIP provider. And here comes Mr Comcast Droid with his promises of high quality, one bill, blah blah blah, and the user thinks that sounds pretty good, so they make the switch.
Also, for those of you griping about security of VoIP, I get that question a lot too. It's not particularly secure, but I find it amusing that nobody asks that question when they're getting a copper line from the local Bell, which isn't secure either. At least to eavesdrop on VoIP you'd have to have access to one of the routers along the path, whereas any ten-year-old can plug a handset into the phone interface on the outside of your house (my friends and I did it all the time to bug my sister).
Comcast vs. Vonage (Score:3, Interesting)
Comcast tells me they can get someone out to fix it, but it will be about 4-5 days. Okay fine, I'll get a credit for the time and I guess that's good enough. It turns out they had accidently disconnected my service while connecting a neighbor.
The amusing part of it all, is that while the guy is telling me it is going to this long to get fixed, the guy tried to sell me their VoIP service. (I never told them I had Vonage). I should have responded, "So, you want me to sign up for your phone service, so the next time this happens I won't be able to call and complain?"
Maybe if you have Comcast's VoIP service they put you at the front of the service queue?
Verizon Technique (Score:3, Funny)
This is called, the Verizon Technique. Quite Common.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast had random internet slowdowns lasting from 12 hrs to a week or more, at least once a month. Even with documentation (ping times to internal servers & google), they refused to even acknowledge the problem.
Comcast was much faster when it worked, but I needed something better than dialup on a random basis.