Vonage and DSL basic

Discussion in 'VOIP' started by Canadian_eh!, Aug 30, 2004.

  1. Canadian_eh!

    Canadian_eh! Guest

    Anyone using Vonage on a basic or "lite" version of DSL (i.e. 128K)
    Canadian_eh!, Aug 30, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Canadian_eh!

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <RitYc.3242$> "Canadian_eh!"
    <> wrote:

    >Anyone using Vonage on a basic or "lite" version of DSL (i.e. 128K)


    Should be fine if you set Vonage to reduce the upstream bandwidth. It
    will negatively impact your sound quality slightly, but it's not
    significant.


    --
    Peter: I read a book about this sort of thing once.
    Brian: Are you sure it was a book? Are you sure it wasn't nothing?
    Peter: Oh yeah
    DevilsPGD, Aug 30, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Canadian_eh!

    charlie3 Guest

    I have Vonage set to 50kbs, the medium setting, and nobody notices
    they are talking on an internet phone.
    charlie3, Sep 2, 2004
    #3
  4. Canadian_eh!

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <>
    (charlie3) wrote:

    >I have Vonage set to 50kbs, the medium setting, and nobody notices
    >they are talking on an internet phone.


    I've had a few people ask if I'm on a cell (mostly because they're the
    type of person that would call back on a landline to avoid wasting cell
    minutes) when I was using lower quality, but it was never an issue.

    I have plenty of upstream bandwidth, I was just trying it out for the
    sake of trying it out.


    --
    For recreational use only.
    DevilsPGD, Sep 2, 2004
    #4
  5. Canadian_eh!

    Isaiah Beard Guest

    DevilsPGD wrote:

    > In message <>
    > (charlie3) wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I have Vonage set to 50kbs, the medium setting, and nobody notices
    >>they are talking on an internet phone.

    >
    >
    > I've had a few people ask if I'm on a cell (mostly because they're the
    > type of person that would call back on a landline to avoid wasting cell
    > minutes) when I was using lower quality, but it was never an issue.


    Vonage was great for me also sound-quality wise, most of the time, and I
    noticed only very minor differences between the bandwidth settings (most
    people I was speaking to noticed nothing different). My only pet peeve
    was the Motorola ATA; it never did QoS right, even if I had the unit
    first-in-line to my cable modem. If anything else on the network was
    downloading anything of substance, the audio would get choppy, and THEN
    people would start to ask if I was on a cell phone. This was on a 4Mbps
    downstream/1.5Mbps upstream connection, so I doubt the broadband
    connection was my problem.

    I ended up switching to Packet8. The features aren't as refined and
    polished, but the service is good, and their ATA operates just fine
    behind my router even if I intentionally place a heavy traffic load on
    the network. Sound quality is about on par with Vonage at its
    low-bandwidth setting, but still useable and close enough to toll grade
    IMO. Again, people I talk to don't notice a difference.




    --
    E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
    Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.
    Isaiah Beard, Sep 2, 2004
    #5
  6. Canadian_eh!

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <WRHZc.2977$> Isaiah Beard
    <> wrote:

    >Vonage was great for me also sound-quality wise, most of the time, and I
    >noticed only very minor differences between the bandwidth settings (most
    >people I was speaking to noticed nothing different). My only pet peeve
    >was the Motorola ATA; it never did QoS right, even if I had the unit
    >first-in-line to my cable modem. If anything else on the network was
    >downloading anything of substance, the audio would get choppy, and THEN
    >people would start to ask if I was on a cell phone. This was on a 4Mbps
    >downstream/1.5Mbps upstream connection, so I doubt the broadband
    >connection was my problem.
    >
    >I ended up switching to Packet8. The features aren't as refined and
    >polished, but the service is good, and their ATA operates just fine
    >behind my router even if I intentionally place a heavy traffic load on
    >the network. Sound quality is about on par with Vonage at its
    >low-bandwidth setting, but still useable and close enough to toll grade
    >IMO. Again, people I talk to don't notice a difference.


    I have both my Cisco ATA and Motorola ATA behind my network firewall
    (Only the WAN port of the Motorola is connected) -- I have my own QoS
    which reserves approximately 100Kb of my 1024Kb for VoIP at all times,
    and offers port-based QoS so that above 100Kb, outbound traffic from the
    ATAs will be processed before any other traffic.


    --
    Some people are like Slinkies... You can't help but
    smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.
    DevilsPGD, Sep 2, 2004
    #6
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jaime
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    529
    Jaime
    Sep 20, 2003
  2. Jimmy Dean
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,034
    Duane Arnold
    Jul 25, 2005
  3. frank
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,323
    frank
    Jan 23, 2005
  4. Gordon Henderson

    Re: Vonage question - multiple sockets on vonage

    Gordon Henderson, Feb 11, 2010, in forum: UK VOIP
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    943
    Gordon Henderson
    Feb 11, 2010
  5. Graham.
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    833
    Paulg0
    Feb 11, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page