Cutting cable...suggestions

[cburbs]

I am helping some friends cut cable costs - They have the full package from comcast(internet/cable/phone.

The place they moved into has internet included.

Is Tivo the only option for DVR capabilities if they are non techie(HTPC not an option)?

VOIP - I have Ooma service and have no complaints. The one requirement here is International calling for them as they are from Scotland so they call home probably once a week. Is Vonage the best option?

Thanks

Chad

[thepcguy]

1. Buy their own Cable Modem. Here in our State, Comcast charge $6/month just for using their Cable Modem.

2. For International calling, they can try MagicJack. Buy and register here in the U.S. to get a U.S. number then send the unit to Scotland.
The unit will now have a U.S. number and can be used anywhere in the world - calls from U.S. will always be free just like local calls
There's also MagicJack App for Android phones.

[RichGuy]

Dec 19, 2013 21:15:41 GMT -5 thepcguy said:

2. For International calling, they can try MagicJack. Buy and register here in the U.S. to get a U.S. number then send the unit to Scotland.
The unit will now have a U.S. number and can be used anywhere in the world - calls from U.S. will always be free just like local calls
There's also MagicJack App for Android phones.

Ooma is like magic jack only better and the same can be done with Ooma. So you can use Ooma anywhere in the world and have a local USA number for others to call you.

I have also had Vonage, Ooma is better and is what I use now, I have had voip service at home since 2005, Ooma is the best I've used.


Another good option would be to download and use Skype, if both parties have Skype it's free so it's great for international calling for families.

[thepcguy]

^MagicJack is $20 a year.

[hemster]

IIRC, doesn't Magicjack require a computer?

[RichGuy]

Dec 23, 2013 21:23:41 GMT -5 thepcguy said:

^MagicJack is $20 a year.

Ooma is just a very little more, I am paying $3.73 a month but Ooma offers much more and is better quality, it's the best phone service I've ever had.

[thepcguy]

Dec 23, 2013 21:32:07 GMT -5 hemster said:

IIRC, doesn't Magicjack require a computer?

The new ones don't.

[thepcguy]

Dec 23, 2013 21:34:20 GMT -5 RichGuy said:

Dec 23, 2013 21:23:41 GMT -5 thepcguy said:

^MagicJack is $20 a year.

Ooma is just a very little more, I am paying $3.73 a month but Ooma offers much more and is better quality, it's the best phone service I've ever had.

I've never tried Ooma. If the quality is better, the price is really reasonable.

[hemster]

Dec 23, 2013 21:35:09 GMT -5 thepcguy said:

Dec 23, 2013 21:32:07 GMT -5 hemster said:

IIRC, doesn't Magicjack require a computer?

The new ones don't.

Thanks, I really didn't want to reply on having a computer connected just for phone calls. 

[hemster]

Dec 23, 2013 21:34:20 GMT -5 RichGuy said:

Dec 23, 2013 21:23:41 GMT -5 thepcguy said:

^MagicJack is $20 a year.

Ooma is just a very little more, I am paying $3.73 a month but Ooma offers much more and is better quality, it's the best phone service I've ever had.

Is there a capital outlay required for the equipment? 

[RichGuy]

Dec 23, 2013 22:50:12 GMT -5 hemster said:

Is there a capital outlay required for the equipment? 

Yes there is, the MSRP for the Ooma equipment is $149.99 but I have seen it as low as $49.99 in some special sales.

You can see more about it at www.ooma.com/

[hemster]

Dec 23, 2013 22:57:42 GMT -5 RichGuy said:

Dec 23, 2013 22:50:12 GMT -5 hemster said:

Is there a capital outlay required for the equipment? 

Yes there is, the MSRP for the Ooma equipment is $149.99 but I have seen it as low as $49.99 in some special sales.

You can see more about it at www.ooma.com/

Thanks. It certainly makes sense economically - especially if one can snag the gear for $50. I'll be looking into this more in early Jan. 

[RichGuy]

If anyone is interested in getting Ooma here is a referral code worth $50 off Ooma equipment. The referral code is WIZ1962
I have been using Ooma at home for about 5 years, best home phone I've ever had and my phone bill is only about $3.00 a month no matter how much I call or where.

www.ooma.com

[mgbpuff]

Beware = A Federal court ruling is going to do away with the internet neutrality policies of the FCC opening the way for us to be hit with new restrictive fees. online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304049704579320500441593462

[KeithL]

I would definitely recommend Skype for Internet-Internet calls.

Skype also has (or at least they used to) an option that lets you call from your computer to users with land lines (or regular cell phones).
(It wasn't free, but at least used to be VERY cheap, for domestic US calls; I don't know about international.)

Dec 23, 2013 20:51:17 GMT -5 RichGuy said:

Dec 19, 2013 21:15:41 GMT -5 thepcguy said:

2. For International calling, they can try MagicJack. Buy and register here in the U.S. to get a U.S. number then send the unit to Scotland.
The unit will now have a U.S. number and can be used anywhere in the world - calls from U.S. will always be free just like local calls
There's also MagicJack App for Android phones.

Ooma is like magic jack only better and the same can be done with Ooma. So you can use Ooma anywhere in the world and have a local USA number for others to call you.

I have also had Vonage, Ooma is better and is what I use now, I have had voip service at home since 2005, Ooma is the best I've used.


Another good option would be to download and use Skype, if both parties have Skype it's free so it's great for international calling for families.

[hemster]

Jan 16, 2014 11:14:49 GMT -5 KeithL said:

I would definitely recommend Skype for Internet-Internet calls.

Skype also has (or at least they used to) an option that lets you call from your computer to users with land lines (or regular cell phones).
(It wasn't free, but at least used to be VERY cheap, for domestic US calls; I don't know about international.)

Dec 23, 2013 20:51:17 GMT -5 RichGuy said:

Ooma is like magic jack only better and the same can be done with Ooma. So you can use Ooma anywhere in the world and have a local USA number for others to call you.

I have also had Vonage, Ooma is better and is what I use now, I have had voip service at home since 2005, Ooma is the best I've used.


Another good option would be to download and use Skype, if both parties have Skype it's free so it's great for international calling for families.

I use Skype a lot for international calling. It is cheap and the call quality is directly correlated to the internet connection. I found that I can also call toll-free US numbers while I'm abroad, for free! 

Lastly, I love the conference calling (called Group calling) feature. 

[KeithL]

You REALLY need to look at both sides of that issue....
Everybody acts like it's some plot by the "evil ISPs" to charge people more...
(Oddly enough, it always seems to be the guys who figure they might get charged who complain....
Without "NET neutrality", guys like NetFlix would have to pay guys like Verizon and Comcast for priority bandwidth;
do you wonder why they don't like the idea of their current free ride going away;
of course, if it did, they'd just pass the cost on to you - but that would lose them customers.)
But it's really a debate that's been going on for years, and it isn't nearly as "obvious" as it seems.

As someone commented down a ways in the article - in the end SOMEONE pays for the bandwidth.
When you buy service for your cell phone, you either get unlimited data (and pay more for it), or accept throttling and a limit (but save some money).
Why is it so unreasonable to treat data the same way?

Don't get me wrong, I have a NetFlix account and I like it just fine, but is it really reasonable that NetFlix gets to make money by charging you and me,
but everybody somehow expects their ISP to give NetFlix free bandwidth over which to distribute their commercial product offering....?
(This is NOT some free public service we're talking about; this is a COMMERCIAL PRODUCT that they're SELLING.)
Why should your ISP, or mine, be forced to help NetFlix make money by delivering the product they sell to their customers - for them - for free?

And is it really unreasonable - as a customer - to be expected to pay more if you want to sit all day watching NetFlix movies?
Why shouldn't some of that money go to compensate your ISP for the bandwidth?
Or is it MORE unreasonable to be the guy whose rates go up (even though he never watches movies) to pay for bandwidth for his neighbor who does?
Personally, if someone IS going to have to pay, it seems more reasonable to me if that is the person using the bandwidth.
Why should my download speed (which I pay for) suffer so all my neighbors can watch more movies without paying extra?

The real question becomes whether you think YOUR ISP should deliver those NetFlix movies to you for free - as a service to YOU (his customer).
To me, that is part of the agreement between him and you...

Maybe you use NetFlix a lot, and would rather sign up with an ISP who lets NetFlix have bandwidth for free - presumably you'll have to pay them more,
but, since he's not charging NetFlix, NetFlix can charge you less.

And maybe I'd rather use an ISP who DOESN'T let NetFlix have priority bandwidth for nothing -  so NetFlix will have to pay him for bandwidth,
and presumably NetFlix will charge me more to make up for it. (Or maybe I don't care about NetFlix, or I'm willing to settle for a crummy picture over
a slower connection - in which case I get to save some money.)

Personally, I'd rather pay for the bandwidth *I* use and not subsidize the bandwidth other people use (which is what "NET neutrality" really means).

I see "NET neutrality" as simply one more way in which what should be a customer choice is getting turned into a "government mandate".
(Instead of each of us deciding how much money we want to spend on bandwidth for NetFlix, we all get to pay for it, whether we use it or not.)

And the standard justification is:
"But, if we don't mandate it, the poor stupid customers will get cheated... again.... and the evil ISPs will make out like bandits."
(But remember how well we poor stupid customers actually did make out when the regular phone service was DEREGULATED... hmmmmm..... )

Personally, I'm pretty sure I'd come out ahead if we each paid our own way.
(And, if it turns out the opposite, then I'll pay what I should - and someone else will save some money.)

Jan 16, 2014 9:26:21 GMT -5 mgbpuff said:

Beware = A Federal court ruling is going to do away with the internet neutrality policies of the FCC opening the way for us to be hit with new restrictive fees. online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304049704579320500441593462

[jefft51]

I use Obihai for my VOIP telephone connection. And it plays nicely with google voice for a provider. (Until Google shuts down voice)
It plugs into your internet connection you plug your landline phone into it (similar to ooma I think) You can get versions that you plug your existing phone service in so handles that too. I don't use that as I cut everything but internet.
Also, you can call someone else with an Obi for free, so it's cheap enough if you want to call someone internationally a lot, get one of these for both ends.
I can also call into it from another phone and call forward using the Obi.
Obi Info
at Amazon

[mgbpuff]

Jan 16, 2014 11:43:21 GMT -5 KeithL said:

You REALLY need to look at both sides of that issue....
Everybody acts like it's some plot by the "evil ISPs" to charge people more...
(Oddly enough, it always seems to be the guys who figure they might get charged who complain....
Without "NET neutrality", guys like NetFlix would have to pay guys like Verizon and Comcast for priority bandwidth;
do you wonder why they don't like the idea of their current free ride going away;
of course, if it did, they'd just pass the cost on to you - but that would lose them customers.)
But it's really a debate that's been going on for years, and it isn't nearly as "obvious" as it seems.

As someone commented down a ways in the article - in the end SOMEONE pays for the bandwidth.
When you buy service for your cell phone, you either get unlimited data (and pay more for it), or accept throttling and a limit (but save some money).
Why is it so unreasonable to treat data the same way?

Don't get me wrong, I have a NetFlix account and I like it just fine, but is it really reasonable that NetFlix gets to make money by charging you and me,
but everybody somehow expects their ISP to give NetFlix free bandwidth over which to distribute their commercial product offering....?
(This is NOT some free public service we're talking about; this is a COMMERCIAL PRODUCT that they're SELLING.)
Why should your ISP, or mine, be forced to help NetFlix make money by delivering the product they sell to their customers - for them - for free?

And is it really unreasonable - as a customer - to be expected to pay more if you want to sit all day watching NetFlix movies?
Why shouldn't some of that money go to compensate your ISP for the bandwidth?
Or is it MORE unreasonable to be the guy whose rates go up (even though he never watches movies) to pay for bandwidth for his neighbor who does?
Personally, if someone IS going to have to pay, it seems more reasonable to me if that is the person using the bandwidth.
Why should my download speed (which I pay for) suffer so all my neighbors can watch more movies without paying extra?

The real question becomes whether you think YOUR ISP should deliver those NetFlix movies to you for free - as a service to YOU (his customer).
To me, that is part of the agreement between him and you...

Maybe you use NetFlix a lot, and would rather sign up with an ISP who lets NetFlix have bandwidth for free - presumably you'll have to pay them more,
but, since he's not charging NetFlix, NetFlix can charge you less.

And maybe I'd rather use an ISP who DOESN'T let NetFlix have priority bandwidth for nothing -  so NetFlix will have to pay him for bandwidth,
and presumably NetFlix will charge me more to make up for it. (Or maybe I don't care about NetFlix, or I'm willing to settle for a crummy picture over
a slower connection - in which case I get to save some money.)

Personally, I'd rather pay for the bandwidth *I* use and not subsidize the bandwidth other people use (which is what "NET neutrality" really means).

I see "NET neutrality" as simply one more way in which what should be a customer choice is getting turned into a "government mandate".
(Instead of each of us deciding how much money we want to spend on bandwidth for NetFlix, we all get to pay for it, whether we use it or not.)

And the standard justification is:
"But, if we don't mandate it, the poor stupid customers will get cheated... again.... and the evil ISPs will make out like bandits."
(But remember how well we poor stupid customers actually did make out when the regular phone service was DEREGULATED... hmmmmm..... )

Personally, I'm pretty sure I'd come out ahead if we each paid our own way.
(And, if it turns out the opposite, then I'll pay what I should - and someone else will save some money.)

Jan 16, 2014 9:26:21 GMT -5 mgbpuff said:

Beware = A Federal court ruling is going to do away with the internet neutrality policies of the FCC opening the way for us to be hit with new restrictive fees. online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304049704579320500441593462

A very powerful free market argument and I am a free market enthusiast, however most all ISPs in small to medium size markets have monopolistic contracts with the local government giving no alternative choice for internet service. Even though I pay a premium for faster internet service than normal, I can hardly watch streamed video content such as Utube (but strangely Netflix and Amazon Prime can play without hinderance). Monopolistic charters need to come with some offsetting benefits for the taxpayers also.

[cburbs]

For now I just sent them comparison sheets on VOIP and DVR items. Told them to ask questions if needed. I recommended Ooma and a Tivo.