VoIP Service "Inferior" To Landlines; Consumers Don't Seem To Care
from the ma-bell's-looking-old-and-tired dept
A study released this week says consumer VoIP services lag traditional landlines in reliability and sound quality. Without arguing the results based on personal experience, the upshot of all this is that people don't really seem to care. What these numbers don't take into account is that call quality and reliability (which was still about 95% for the worst performer) are just part of the whole value equation: while the sound quality might be slightly worse than a landline, the low price (as well as all the extra features included) more than compensate, making VoIP providers much more attractive than landline carriers for a good chunk of people.
6 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- How Being More Open, Human And Awesome Can Save Anyone Worried About Making Money In Entertainment
- Evidence Shows That Megaupload Shutdown Had No Real Impact On Infringement
- DailyDirt: Anthropomorphizing Animals
- DailyDirt: Birds Do The Darndest Things
- iPhone Data Debunks Recording Industry's Report On How French Three Strikes Law Increased Sales





Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
VoIP Quality
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Wait for Outages
I had one of those for all of a month and endured two outages and multiple other headaches. That was it. I switched to my cable provider and i've been happy since.
Vonage and others and have also had wide spread service outages and i think you'll see some people switching back to more established carriers like wireless, cable, or ILECs.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Wrong comparison for
As for the requisite personal experience anecdote this thread seems to require. I've been a Vonage subscriber for almost two full years now. Quality has dramatically (and thankfully) improved. Haven't had poor line quality or a dropped call in about a year. Yes, the local telco does offer a reasonably cheap "all-you-can-eat", but my job requires frequent extended stays away from home. As such, an adapter I can take with me to bring my "home" phone along for the trip was essential.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wrong comparison for
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wrong comparison for
I think you misunderstood my post.
IF people are saying that VoIP, with inherent quality issues when compared to a landline, is still a good deal, one has to ask "Why do the survey responsdents accept lesser service?". Is it just a price issue? I doubt it, given as others here have said, you can get reasonably cheap all-you-can-eat service from your local telco, complete with landline quality. So again, why would consumers accept (slightly) lesser quality? My suposition is that they accept it because we've been desensitized by wireless quality, which is FAR inferior to VoIP, but we happily pay big bucks for the privelege. Yes, your point is accurate that it is wireless. However, I believe that now, after more than 15 years of widespread wireless service, people are accustomed to it, and don't ascribe a lot of novelty value to being able to make a call wirelessly. It just is. Therefore, I believe people just come to accept this as just phone service, and don't put as much value on the method/technology of delivery really.
Sumamry: If occassionaly crappy wireless service is acceptable at its price levels, than VoIP also seems like a good value to those consumers / survey respondents.
(and actually, yes, I *do* take my VoIP adapter with me when I leave the house for business travel, as I stated in my post.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment