 
jchambers28
join:2007-05-12
Alma, AR | cheaper hopefully it will be cheaper that vonage | |
|
tenorsaw1
join:2003-07-10
Brooklyn, NY | I'm happy Thank goodness! I love CallVantage. | |
|
|
 | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | Re: . Fee for not having ATT DSL: $5.00
Other Taxes and fees: 15.00
Federal Internet Access Charge: $5.00
Standard ATT charges. | |
|
| | wh5916
join:2006-02-09
Newport News, VA
 ·Cox HSI
| Re: . said by hottboiinnc  :Fee for not having ATT DSL: $5.00 Other Taxes and fees: 15.00 Federal Internet Access Charge: $5.00 Standard ATT charges. CallVantage service typically runs me $24.90 a month. The service itself is $19.95, the remainder are standard taxes such as 911. My internet provider is Cox.
Before the move to CallVantage, I was paying Cavalier Telephone roughly $38.00 a month for basic landline telephone service. Over $15.00 of the monthly charge were taxes and fees. | |
|
| | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH | Re: . those were the new "taxes" after the "new" att changes everything. I replied to the post regarding the new taxes. | |
|
|
| openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Navarre, FL
 ·AT&T Southeast
·Mediacom
| Re: Good Move You might be surprised. AT&T is probably tired of losing their bread and butter landline business to MSOs and other VoIP providers. This is AT&T's chance to undercut the competition and regain customers. AT&T's expense to deploy a new VoIP service is minimal, so we may be lucky and see some competitive pricing. | |
|
| | 
Matt
You can't fix stupid
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
 ·Corporate Colocation
| Re: Good Move said by openbox9 :You might be surprised. AT&T is probably tired of losing their bread and butter landline business to MSOs and other VoIP providers. This is AT&T's chance to undercut the competition and regain customers. AT&T's expense to deploy a new VoIP service is minimal, so we may be lucky and see some competitive pricing. I certainly hope you are correct, but so far, they've never come in cheaper, even with a subpar product. (See: U-Verse)
--
Linux Haters Unite! | |
|
| 
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs: | they wont be competing on price. the bells dont usually compete in that arena. | |
|
| 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | If this is a BYOB offering, with no QoS, it better be cheap. It will need to be a lot cheaper then say Cox's Digital Telephone or other MSO's VOIP. | |
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Any info on why? It seems strange that they would kill an established brand and infrastructure for a byob voip product, only to introduce another one shortly thereafter. Why go through this transition?
Are they looking to kill the CallVantage infrastructure for some reason (too expensive, not scaleable, wrong architecture, ...???) Are they trying to introduce a different set of technology? If so why not do it under the CallVantage branding and ordering/provisioning/support scheme?
Do they simply want to re-launch the same infrastructure with a different brand??
Or is there some other twist I'm not seeing? I'm pretty puzzled at this move. | |
|
| |
| | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Any info on why? said by morbo :said by MyDogHsFleas :It seems strange that they would kill an established brand and infrastructure remember cingular? people liked that company. agree -- but that really was just a rebranding. it was still cingular, just with a different name.
remember sbc? although not liked to the same level, that name and corporate attitude was definitely liked more than at&t.
Disagree -- SBC was hated, AT&T had a generally positive branding. Only here in dslreports.com does insane AT&T hatred fester. Check it out in the real world.
forget all the $ spent on branding and general marketing. let's just turn everything back into at&t.
add callvantage to the list. kill it. resurrect it in a more horrible form.
??? well that has not at all informative. I was looking for INFORMATION. That was pretty much just some random spew. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA
| Re: Any info on why? Cingular wasn't renamed at&t wireless- the legal name of the wireless company was changed to "AT&T Mobility LLC", but the only brand they want you to use is at&t, without any descriptor- which probably works better in places like here where there's no landline at&t to deal with.
I always found it funny that Cingular bought the old AT&T Wireless (which DID use that name), spent tons of money to say "AT&T Wireless is now Cingular", and then very shortly after had to spend tons of money to say "Cingular is now 'the new' at&t". | |
|
| | | | | hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| Re: Any info on why? By changing the legal name of the company it they did rebrand it. How? They do NOT use the name Cingular anymore except on their wireless network when you search for GSM carriers for signal. That's it. Everything else says ATT. cingular.com goes to wireless.att.com thats is a rebrand. Their commericals say ATT Wireless. NOT Cingular.
They rebranded the company weather you want to agree or not. Rebranding is when you change the name of a company and no longer use the old one in marketing or any other form. | |
|
| | | | | | EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | Re: Any info on why? No commercials say "at&t Wireless", they just say "at&t". That was my point  | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | 
SolarPup
Cable Dawg
Premium
join:2002-03-07
The Pound
clubs: | Re: Any info on why? That's friggin hilarious! | |
|
| | | | | Guy Waters
join:2001-12-04
San Francisco, CA
| It was politics. SBC couldn't purchase AT&T Wireless while they were in a joint venture with BellSouth in Cingular. Once SBC purchased BellSouth they could then resurect the AT&T name.
My personal opinion is SBC wanted 100% control of Cingular and it was less expensive to purchase all of BellSouth than to purchase BellSouth's 40% of Cingular. | |
|
| | | | | | |
| | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| AT&T did NOT have a good name with people.. in the real world it wasn't well liked. It only had one thing going; it had name recognition. As a company, AT&T was was not consumer friendly.. they violated law after law... and they didn't do much innovating for years. They purchased a good cable conglomerate and gutted and fillet it and left those customers to rot.
I'm sorry to disagree with you but AT&T was a horrible company.. even outside BBR. (And I don't agree with BBR very often) | |
|
| | | | |
| | Guy Waters
join:2001-12-04
San Francisco, CA
| Just remember it's the SBC executives at the helm of the new AT&T. SBC only purchased AT&T for the nationwide name recognition and the nationwide network backbone. Other than that they had no other real intrerst in the company.
It was Cingular as a joint venture of SBC/BellSouth that purchased the original AT&T Wireless and merged it into the Cingular brand name. Then changed the name to AT&T Mobility after purchasing BellSouth.
SBC has been sucessful in highlighting the blame for bad service on the AT&T name. | |
|
| | | |
| |
| |
| | MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: Any info on why? scots, en102 -- good posts
I do remember them now complaining about "capacity limits" but they brought out Release 2 of their infrastructure to fix that. CV now has two completely different sets of servers, old and new. In fact I have one TA on the old, and one on the new.
I also recall now that CV was originally designed as a business offering. IBM, which is good buddies with AT&T, provides CV to their home office employees (of which I am one).
Maybe it will be femtocell linked to AT&T Wireless (nee Cingular) using your broadband as an alternative backhaul. That would actually be really sweet. No more multiple phones and phone numbers for me and my family! Too good to actually be true, I fear. | |
|
| | | |
| | | | markofmayhem
join:2004-04-08
Pittsburgh, PA | Re: Any info on why? What's this Sprint product called? I can't find it and would love to use my home phone over broadband charged to my cell phone like T-Mobile. | |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | 
phonebrain
@charter.com
| The play to go with BYOB is already the way I use Callvantage. I is NOT My understanding that anything but the LAST MILE of Callvantage goes over the PUBLIC net as that would be SKYPE! And its worked without a pop, snap or crackle for 4 years- and I am a SW network engineer for more than 20 years.
The IP rides in the DOCSIS frame for the last mile on a shared media (public net) but once in the CO it is routed onto an ATT VPN which is ATT Backbone-maybe they tell U-verse people that to calm them. QOS is not needed in cable in last mile much as its such a fat pipe-with video recently I have had some upstream congestion maybe during a peak 20 mins. a day...usually not bad but tells you they need to fix DOCSIS to do some prioritization in the VOIP gateways and from the CO to the CPE. Anyway point here is I can not GET ATT DSSL as I am in VZ land but I CAN GET CALLVANTAGE AND I CAN GET ATT WIRELESS so the customers ATT would want would be to STEAL VZs cellular customers especially the ones already lost to Callvantage or Vonage as hey are RIPE for the picking. OF COURSE THAT WOULD BE VIA FMC
and yes Femtocells would do it--ONE PHONE for Cell and home...
and likely unlike T-Mobile they would not use DUAL MODE hand sets but the iPhone could takk direct to femto tower. Finally iPhone operation when in HOME mode runs ENHANCED FEATURE SET due to the faster and CHEAPER BACKHAUL. Home calls are al free as are premium features that are more when "wandering" that is moving outside of a hot spot in the ATT network..
once at work...a picocell device could then take over and offer free calling within your office net--later..for now I see a DOUBLE PLAY Move
to retain and expand STICKY CELL SERVICE and to admit as well DSL is a lame way to deploy so expand business as we lay fiber and pay for it via cells etc.
Saying BEST EFFORT confuses people--the only BEST EFFORT for VOIP is when its over DSL if the traffivc is not tagged as VOIE in the TOS feild
from the DSLAM (if its IP--or if ATM tagged CBR) then its BEST EFFORT, purely an issue from the CO to the CPE---as far as from CO to
the core---come on boys-CALLVANTAGE AINT GOING OVER THE PUBLIC NET
NOR IS U-VERSE --they are both mapped next hop to the ATT IP BACKBONE...
otherwise the calls would be FREE LIKE SKYPE_-even SKYPE has paid calling where they go over say LEVEL 3s network and do so EXACTLY in way I say via routing to LEVE:L 3s VPN.....
otay...
phonebrain | |
|
| |
|
not
@comcast.net
| there are several reasons
not scalable.
not easily upgradeable.
older architecture.
older network.
older ordering/provisioning/support
not fully e911 compliant.
not IMS compliant.
new platform already has more customers than callvantage.
new platform will have more features than callvantage. | |
|
| | 
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA | Re: Any info on why? quote:
new platform already has more customers than callvantage.
Does that mean the new platform is U-Verse Voice? How else would that be possible? | |
|
| | |
hmm
@swbell.net
| Re: Any info on why? said by djrobx : quote:
new platform already has more customers than callvantage.
Does that mean the new platform is U-Verse Voice? How else would that be possible? The new platform is an IMS VoIP platform. Currently the only product being sold on this platform is U-Verse Voice. | |
|
| |
df
@compplanner.com | I thought Callvantage was sonus based which about the best, most scalable on the market? | |
|
rmrper
join:2006-06-13
Garland, TX
·Verizon FIOS
| Hopefully it will be as good as CallVantage I've been a happy user, even though it's been more expensive than others like Vonage, simply because it's pretty reliable for the near 2 years I've had it. Hopefully this new service will be priced comparably and won't have a bunch of service/quality issues until it becomes mature in market. | |
|
meh37
@verizon.net | A rose... by another name...
(AT&T -> at&t. CallVantage -> ???.) | |
|
mrg123
join:2004-02-05
Berthoud, CO | Callvantage has worked great for me... I've had CallVantage for almost 3 years. I'm a very satisfied customer; I've had almost no problems in all that time other than a few attributed to my ISP. I'd hate to see it go... | |
|
odreian615
join:2006-01-18
Chicago, IL | Is this the 40 dollar phone and DSL package I seen it on TV 2 weeks ago ? | |
|
Rob2647
join:2008-08-12
Rochester, MI | No Thanks I'll keep my Vonage | |
|
| Ashtonford
join:2004-05-17
Triangle, VA | Re: service Me too Vonage is the best in the business. Too many people jumpng on over priced phone company offerings as well as cable companys offerings. Vonage is the Best choice hands down | |
|
| |
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
·DSL EXTREME
edit:
August 19th, @01:19AM
| Re: service I dunno, Vonage seems a little pricey to me. I really like that they have a basic plan at $14.95, but they should include more minutes (maybe 1000). For $20 I have unlimited with CallVantage. There's got to be a happier medium for lighter users.
The offerings from the cable companies are a higher grade product, somewhere between Vonage VOIP and POTS. It's got hardware QoS provisioned separate from your internet bandwidth. It's also a full bandwidth signal, capable of handling fax and data calls without any special configuration.
Here in socal, TW's VOIP is $35/month for the first 12 months (which, if you threaten to cancel, they will re-up you with whatever the current promo is). Then you add in your $10 triple-play discount. Same price as Vonage for a higher quality product, albeit with less features.
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
| |
|
ILuvCallV
join:2008-08-18
USA
| re: CallVantage being "replaced" I don't understand most of these comments. Note that the name is AT&T CallVantage (similar to AT&T Wireless), so there is no need to change the name.
AT&T CallVantage was always targeted at the consumer and not the business market. They have a different product targeted at the business VoIP market.
There are many telephone adaptors (TA's) supported on the platform -- I don't know why you would think there is more than one platform.
I also don't understand capacity issues to a service that hasn't been advertised in years and according to most voip news items is not growing.
Whatever the reason, it will be interesting to see. Will we all have to return our TAs and get something new?
From my perspective, I cannot imagine this being a good thing. | |
|
| manhole
join:2000-09-12
Modesto, CA
clubs: | Re: re: CallVantage being "replaced" Probably something to compete with T-Mobile's HotSpot@home and/or @home service. | |
|
| | 
burgerwars
join:2004-09-11
Northridge, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: re: CallVantage being "replaced" said by manhole :Probably something to compete with T-Mobile's HotSpot@home and/or @home service. AT&T Femtocell ? | |
|
| Fisamo
Premium
join:2004-02-20
Apex, NC
·AT&T CallVantage
| Re: CallVantage being "replaced" I've been a happy CV customer for four years, and I'm not keen on seeing it disappear. That said, if they're replacing it with a new BYOB VoIP service, I have to echo some of the comments made above--hope it's done right, doesn't need to "mature" (to become reliable) after launch, is scalable, etc.
Without having ever worked for ATT or SBC, I can say that some of their tech support people had implied scalability problems with the original servers (when saying the newer platform would offer significant improvements in that area). What I don't get is the comment about E911 incompatibility, given the old AT&T's lack of hesitation to kick people off its network if they couldn't confirm E911 operability. (Or is this move to make E911 capability more widespread?)
The other concern that I'd voice now (because I'm sure it's been discussed internally at AT&T) is that current CallVantage customers may well be forced onto the new system at some point--whether by firmware/config file update to their ATAs, or by shipment of new ATAs (and 'porting' of their numbers).
At this point, only time will tell about the new system (can't expect AT&T to tell... until they're ready.  ) If it offers more features, same uptime/quality, better price (hey, we can dream, can't we?) I'm all for it. But with what I know now, I'll wait and see. | |
|
| | Guy Waters
join:2001-12-04
San Francisco, CA | Re: CallVantage being "replaced" Why not just move it to the service platform and retain the CallVantage name? | |
|
verolom
join:2002-03-23
Eatontown, NJ
·Comcast
| Home Manager It's called Home Manager. It is a touch-screen tablet PC-like device made by Samsung that can browse the "sandbox" web, check the weather, play movies, stream music, store cooking receipts and, gasp!!! make VoIP calls (speakerphone) to other Home Managers in your home, on the internet, and to/from the PSTN.
VoIP is dead, long live VoIP! | |
|
| |
attsucks
@rr.com | Beware of "best effort" Companies They do their best effort to make sure you get vad service so they can charge you to fix it. | |
|
fpilot
join:2007-02-24
Camino, CA | BYOB all right Since AT&T can't seem to provide it... | |
|
Matt9876543
@charter.com | If it's (BYOB) VoIP If it's (BYOB) VoIP than go with MagicJack for $20 a year!
AT&T $516.37 a year.
Vonage $404.88 a year.
MagicJack $20.00 a year.
You do the math.
| |
|
|
|
|
AT&T Cooking Up New VoIP Product
.
Good Move
