cable modems and as a separate ? # porting (SOHO setup)

I've stepped back in this narrative to provide some equipment setup details.
My setup is cable modem to phone adapter to wireless router with a
relatively new and upper end desktop.

I will refer to 3 VOiP companies. 1 is the company I have from 2005 until
now - leaving them due to lack of any type of customer service.
2 is the company I left 1 for, they have a very low flat rate fee for a one
year contract with a 31 day cancellation policy (I am within that time
frame). I have 2 in service now.
3 is the company I may transfer to next.

2 had multiple drop outs on both 800 # calls and local calls this afternoon.
When I called customer service, most likely overseas from the US where I am
located, after an
extended hold time the CSR indicated they have technical problems and to
call back in an hour or two. That really inspired confidence in the
reliability of their service.
While I was on hold I read their service may have compatibility issues with
my cable modem.

#1 offered terrible support, but generally their service was ok with the
same cable modem. Not landline quality tone, but no total dropouts,
occasionally slow "half duplex"
type conversations and echo.

First ? - my cable modem was not an issue with #1, maybe an issue with #2,
and #3 claims my modem is not an issue. In general can some cable modems
conflict with the phone
adapters or VOiP equipment at the provider terminal? If so, if the modem is
an issue with #2 what are the odds the modem is an issue with #3?

Second ? #1 provider is paid for until the end of June. They have my current
telephone #. I have requested #2 to port the # to their company but that has
not been accomplished yet.
If I cancel #2 to move to #3 and thereby place confusion in the porting path
(especially for #1 company that claimed they could not port my # back to
them today when it was slated to leave #1 to #2??) what are the odds that I
get my number ported? A CSR for #3 was honest and indicated porting will
become a problem. Has anyone in this NG experience with porting #'s?
If there are porting problems what steps can the consumer take to maintain
control of their phone # (same # for 5 years)?

I apologize for such a long post, and I have attempted to summarize! Please
request any specific details required to clarify the issues!

Noname

On Thu, 18 May 2006 16:16:43 -0400, "Noname" <>
wrote:

>I've stepped back in this narrative to provide some equipment setup details.
>My setup is cable modem to phone adapter to wireless router with a
>relatively new and upper end desktop.
>
>I will refer to 3 VOiP companies. 1 is the company I have from 2005 until
>now - leaving them due to lack of any type of customer service.
>2 is the company I left 1 for, they have a very low flat rate fee for a one
>year contract with a 31 day cancellation policy (I am within that time
>frame). I have 2 in service now.
>3 is the company I may transfer to next.
>
>2 had multiple drop outs on both 800 # calls and local calls this afternoon.
>When I called customer service, most likely overseas from the US where I am
>located, after an
>extended hold time the CSR indicated they have technical problems and to
>call back in an hour or two. That really inspired confidence in the
>reliability of their service.
>While I was on hold I read their service may have compatibility issues with
>my cable modem.

That's true and not a big deal to resolve. I wish I could
remember the specific details, but there was a mode of operation that
a cablemodem must support for good, reliable VOIP service. My father
had a cablemodem that did not support it. The cable provider had to
come out and swap his cablemodem out for one that did support it. He
was fine from that moment on. He is with Vonage.

>#1 offered terrible support, but generally their service was ok with the
>same cable modem. Not landline quality tone, but no total dropouts,
>occasionally slow "half duplex"
>type conversations and echo.
>
>First ? - my cable modem was not an issue with #1, maybe an issue with #2,
>and #3 claims my modem is not an issue. In general can some cable modems
>conflict with the phone
>adapters or VOiP equipment at the provider terminal? If so, if the modem is
>an issue with #2 what are the odds the modem is an issue with #3?
>
>Second ? #1 provider is paid for until the end of June. They have my current
>telephone #. I have requested #2 to port the # to their company but that has
>not been accomplished yet.
>If I cancel #2 to move to #3 and thereby place confusion in the porting path
>(especially for #1 company that claimed they could not port my # back to
>them today when it was slated to leave #1 to #2??) what are the odds that I
>get my number ported? A CSR for #3 was honest and indicated porting will
>become a problem. Has anyone in this NG experience with porting #'s?
>If there are porting problems what steps can the consumer take to maintain
>control of their phone # (same # for 5 years)?
>
>I apologize for such a long post, and I have attempted to summarize! Please
>request any specific details required to clarify the issues!

I understand your frustration. I've come to the conclusion
that 'customer service' is an oxymoron. It is because they hire so
many entry level people for this role. They may be great at checking
your bill or selling you new service. They can even disconnect you
with a smile. And it saves the company money because they don't have
to pay these idiots as much.

But when it comes to providing support for issues like this,
they don't have a clue.

When I was using Time-Warner cable, I got a Cisco 831 router
through the Cisco NetAcademy program.

Time-Warner told me 'not to use that router because they
didn't suport it'. They don't have to support it because I'm Cisco
trained and certified. I can do the support. And I can get help from
Cisco through my Smartnet account when it is required.

When I connected it to the cablemodem, it didn't work. Cisco
told me it was because they locked in on the MAC address from the PC
and the cablemodem company had to reset it so it would take the MAC
address from the router. He told me to call Time-Warner. He was a
second level technical support person.

Time-Warner said that that wasn't true and said that I should
call Cisco back. Cisco said it was true. But they did a work around
solution. The told me how to forge my PC's MAC address onto the
Internet port of the router. That worked. I had to change out the
NIC card on my PC so my PC would have a different MAC address (because
two MAC addresses that were the same would confuse the router). But
that was OK because I had a handful of spare NIC cards.

I was discussing this with a classmate of mine at the Cisco
program I was enrolled in. He told me to power down the cablemodem
for thirty seconds to blow the memory. The old MAC address would be
deleted from its memory and it would accept the new MAC address.

I went home, deleted the forged MAC address from the router
profile, then powered down the cablemodem for thirty seconds. When I
powered it back on, the router was working just fine.

I called back this second level technical support guy (same
person) and raked him over the coals for it. I told him it was
shocking that their people didn't know the simple issues of their
equipment for their customers. He was quite embarrassed, to say the
least. But their technical support didn't get any better.

I now use Mediacom (I changed when I moved to a new area).
They have their problems but are a big improvement over Time-Warner.
With Time-Warner, I had to apply pressure through the county franchise
folks several times to fix cablemodem problems for me and my father,
too.

With Mediacom, I've not had to resort to that. I've managed
to get my issues fixed. When I first moved here, I had three
consecutive days that my service went down. Because I have VOIP, I
had to drive to the local convenience store to call them and report
it. I did this every day for three days. They kept insisting it had
to be a problem with my equipment. I didn't think so.

I explained to them that my phone service was VOIP and if I
found myself in the position of needing a fire truck, police officer,
or ambulance and couldn't call them that I'd hold them liable. I was
told that cablemodem was for entertainment use only and therefore
they'd have no liability. I promptly sent a certified letter to their
lawyers telling them that I'd hold them liable if I found myself in
that position. I got the green proof of delivery card back. But they
never answered me.

On the third day, I demanded positive action. They agreed to
have someone come out and look at my setup. They still felt it was my
problem but would try to figure out what my problem was. They
committed to come by first thing in the morning.

When that morning came, my phone rang. It was Mediacom. Their
technician had found an amplifier in our neighborhood that was
mal-aligned. They had adjusted it and felt I would have no more
problems and there was no longer any need to come by. I haven't
except on rare occasion. Those experiences have been fairly brief.
They sometimes deny the problem is theirs, but if you stay on them,
you can get them to find a resolution. That wasn't so easy with
Time-Warner.

One of my VOIP providers (I have two now because the old one
won't release my old number) has told me that they are not required to
report numbers because they have written a policy saying that they are
not required to. I have a complaint filed against them with the FCC.
That's been pending for months. I got a copy of the reply they sent
to the FCC weeks ago. But the FCC hasn't replied. When I sent a
email of inquiry to the FCC, they said they hadn't had time to read
the response yet.

It took a lot of maneuvering to get my number listed with
directory assistance. It will be published in the upcoming telephone
directory, too. And the VOIP won't put up 'the number you have
reached has been changed to...' recording. So that presents a
problem. Interesting that they think they can mandate a deviation
from the FCC's requirement that all providers support number
portability. I tried to work out my quality problems with them but
they are not interested in fixing them.

These companies think that such poor support is acceptable. I
disagree. Many has been the time I've been told something by a
technical support person that I knew was wrong as soon as I heard it.
They should read some of Juran and Demming's book on TQM.
They'd have to wake up and smell the roses.

Regards,


Fred

"Fred Atkinson" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Thu, 18 May 2006 16:16:43 -0400, "Noname" <>
> wrote:
>
> >I've stepped back in this narrative to provide some equipment setup
details.
> >My setup is cable modem to phone adapter to wireless router with a
> >relatively new and upper end desktop.
> >
> >I will refer to 3 VOiP companies. 1 is the company I have from 2005 until
> >now - leaving them due to lack of any type of customer service.
> >2 is the company I left 1 for, they have a very low flat rate fee for a
one
> >year contract with a 31 day cancellation policy (I am within that time
> >frame). I have 2 in service now.
> >3 is the company I may transfer to next.
> >
> >2 had multiple drop outs on both 800 # calls and local calls this
afternoon.
> >When I called customer service, most likely overseas from the US where I
am
> >located, after an
> >extended hold time the CSR indicated they have technical problems and to
> >call back in an hour or two. That really inspired confidence in the
> >reliability of their service.
> >While I was on hold I read their service may have compatibility issues
with
> >my cable modem.
>
> That's true and not a big deal to resolve. I wish I could
> remember the specific details, but there was a mode of operation that
> a cablemodem must support for good, reliable VOIP service. My father
> had a cablemodem that did not support it. The cable provider had to
> come out and swap his cablemodem out for one that did support it. He
> was fine from that moment on. He is with Vonage.
>
> >#1 offered terrible support, but generally their service was ok with the
> >same cable modem. Not landline quality tone, but no total dropouts,
> >occasionally slow "half duplex"
> >type conversations and echo.
> >
> >First ? - my cable modem was not an issue with #1, maybe an issue with
#2,
> >and #3 claims my modem is not an issue. In general can some cable modems
> >conflict with the phone
> >adapters or VOiP equipment at the provider terminal? If so, if the modem
is
> >an issue with #2 what are the odds the modem is an issue with #3?
> >
> >Second ? #1 provider is paid for until the end of June. They have my
current
> >telephone #. I have requested #2 to port the # to their company but that
has
> >not been accomplished yet.
> >If I cancel #2 to move to #3 and thereby place confusion in the porting
path
> >(especially for #1 company that claimed they could not port my # back to
> >them today when it was slated to leave #1 to #2??) what are the odds that
I
> >get my number ported? A CSR for #3 was honest and indicated porting will
> >become a problem. Has anyone in this NG experience with porting #'s?
> >If there are porting problems what steps can the consumer take to
maintain
> >control of their phone # (same # for 5 years)?
> >
> >I apologize for such a long post, and I have attempted to summarize!
Please
> >request any specific details required to clarify the issues!
>
> I understand your frustration. I've come to the conclusion
> that 'customer service' is an oxymoron. It is because they hire so
> many entry level people for this role. They may be great at checking
> your bill or selling you new service. They can even disconnect you
> with a smile. And it saves the company money because they don't have
> to pay these idiots as much.
>
> But when it comes to providing support for issues like this,
> they don't have a clue.
>
> When I was using Time-Warner cable, I got a Cisco 831 router
> through the Cisco NetAcademy program.
>
> Time-Warner told me 'not to use that router because they
> didn't suport it'. They don't have to support it because I'm Cisco
> trained and certified. I can do the support. And I can get help from
> Cisco through my Smartnet account when it is required.
>
> When I connected it to the cablemodem, it didn't work. Cisco
> told me it was because they locked in on the MAC address from the PC
> and the cablemodem company had to reset it so it would take the MAC
> address from the router. He told me to call Time-Warner. He was a
> second level technical support person.
>
> Time-Warner said that that wasn't true and said that I should
> call Cisco back. Cisco said it was true. But they did a work around
> solution. The told me how to forge my PC's MAC address onto the
> Internet port of the router. That worked. I had to change out the
> NIC card on my PC so my PC would have a different MAC address (because
> two MAC addresses that were the same would confuse the router). But
> that was OK because I had a handful of spare NIC cards.
>
> I was discussing this with a classmate of mine at the Cisco
> program I was enrolled in. He told me to power down the cablemodem
> for thirty seconds to blow the memory. The old MAC address would be
> deleted from its memory and it would accept the new MAC address.
>
> I went home, deleted the forged MAC address from the router
> profile, then powered down the cablemodem for thirty seconds. When I
> powered it back on, the router was working just fine.
>
> I called back this second level technical support guy (same
> person) and raked him over the coals for it. I told him it was
> shocking that their people didn't know the simple issues of their
> equipment for their customers. He was quite embarrassed, to say the
> least. But their technical support didn't get any better.
>
> I now use Mediacom (I changed when I moved to a new area).
> They have their problems but are a big improvement over Time-Warner.
> With Time-Warner, I had to apply pressure through the county franchise
> folks several times to fix cablemodem problems for me and my father,
> too.
>
> With Mediacom, I've not had to resort to that. I've managed
> to get my issues fixed. When I first moved here, I had three
> consecutive days that my service went down. Because I have VOIP, I
> had to drive to the local convenience store to call them and report
> it. I did this every day for three days. They kept insisting it had
> to be a problem with my equipment. I didn't think so.
>
> I explained to them that my phone service was VOIP and if I
> found myself in the position of needing a fire truck, police officer,
> or ambulance and couldn't call them that I'd hold them liable. I was
> told that cablemodem was for entertainment use only and therefore
> they'd have no liability. I promptly sent a certified letter to their
> lawyers telling them that I'd hold them liable if I found myself in
> that position. I got the green proof of delivery card back. But they
> never answered me.
>
> On the third day, I demanded positive action. They agreed to
> have someone come out and look at my setup. They still felt it was my
> problem but would try to figure out what my problem was. They
> committed to come by first thing in the morning.
>
> When that morning came, my phone rang. It was Mediacom. Their
> technician had found an amplifier in our neighborhood that was
> mal-aligned. They had adjusted it and felt I would have no more
> problems and there was no longer any need to come by. I haven't
> except on rare occasion. Those experiences have been fairly brief.
> They sometimes deny the problem is theirs, but if you stay on them,
> you can get them to find a resolution. That wasn't so easy with
> Time-Warner.
>
> One of my VOIP providers (I have two now because the old one
> won't release my old number) has told me that they are not required to
> report numbers because they have written a policy saying that they are
> not required to. I have a complaint filed against them with the FCC.
> That's been pending for months. I got a copy of the reply they sent
> to the FCC weeks ago. But the FCC hasn't replied. When I sent a
> email of inquiry to the FCC, they said they hadn't had time to read
> the response yet.
>
> It took a lot of maneuvering to get my number listed with
> directory assistance. It will be published in the upcoming telephone
> directory, too. And the VOIP won't put up 'the number you have
> reached has been changed to...' recording. So that presents a
> problem. Interesting that they think they can mandate a deviation
> from the FCC's requirement that all providers support number
> portability. I tried to work out my quality problems with them but
> they are not interested in fixing them.
>
> These companies think that such poor support is acceptable. I
> disagree. Many has been the time I've been told something by a
> technical support person that I knew was wrong as soon as I heard it.
> They should read some of Juran and Demming's book on TQM.
> They'd have to wake up and smell the roses.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Fred

I appreciate the quality and detail of your response.
I thought I would setup with provider #3 ok, but today they refused my sign
up due to E911 concerns.
I have found provider #4 that does not appear as concerned re E911 issues (I
fill in the form and assume liability?).
QoS is ? and customer reviews are all over the board, but that is typical
with all the VOiP providers.

I'll follow up with the FCC re number portability!