Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #181649

Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro

Show all headers | View raw

Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> wrote:

> VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
> 
>> That's why I mention that I have digital phone service with my ISP.
>> That is *not* VOIP: no Internet involved, no packetization. 
>> However, I have before been able to fax over VOIP.
> 
> When I hear 'digital phone service' I think of SIP and RTP, as example
> protocols, but both of those are usually UDP and involve packetization
> and the Internet. I must be wrong. Can you steer me in the right
> direction?

Correction: Comcast does use IP, but only over their privately managed
network which connects to a POS (Point of Service - where VOIP calls
interface to a telco network).  Their voice traffic does not travel the
public Internet.  2 channels in the cable modem are dedicated to digital
voice, and those go to Comcast only, not elsewhere on the Internet.
This differs from VOIP providers with their best-effort services
delivering voice traffic across the Internet.  I consider VOIP to be a
comm service over the Internet and subject to the irregular traffic
delivery thereof.  Digital voice that uses a private network to connect
to a telecomm network is not what users generally refer to as
traditional VOIP.

IP does not have guaranteed order of delivery.  Neither does UDP in its
basic implementation.  TCP does have reliable in-order packet delivery,
but TCP is slower due to the overhead.  UDP has low latency which
equates to smooter voice quality.  Considering how cell phone users have
become accustomed to the crappy quality of cell-based calls, digital
voice is far superior.  Losing a packet for voice traffic is
insignificant.  It's voice, not data.

UDP does not guarantee in-order packet sequencing, or that your packets
arrive at all.  Out of order packets result in dropped packets.  UDP is
used for VOIP.  Digital voice also uses UDP, but can modified, and far
less a problem over a small LAN, or between the voice-capable modem to
Comcast's privately managed network.  For example, each packet can
contain a header describing the number of the packet (from a larger
packet sliced into pieces) along with another header indicating the
packet was part of a larger overall packet, like the total size for the
overall packet.  On delivery, the packets gets dropped in the correct
position in a buffer quickly created via malloc() that can hold the
total byte count, and on arrival each packet's size deducted from the
total size letting the receiving end know when all packets arrived.
This is an example of a custom protocol overlay on UDP similar to the
sliding window protocol used by TCP.  For UDP, I believe only the header
packet(s) must be received first which says how many packets are
supposed to arrive, so UDP packets thereafter can arrive in any order.
UDP doesn't guarantee order on delivery, but that does not prevent
ordering the packets on delivery.  It's the lost packets that are
worrisome, but that is when your traffic is over the Internet, not
within a privately managed network where packet loss is very difficult.

With Comcast digital, only their managed network is involved.  With VOIP
as it is typically understood, your voice traffic hops around in the
Internet to perhaps iffy nodes in the route.  With Google Voice, the
Internet is used between user and a Google POS where thereafter it
traverses over whatever telco Google used at the POS.  The same is/was
true of how magicJack worked.  When I make calls using Google Voice, I
can see I am connecting to some POS: today it was in the 504 area code
(New Orleans, Lousianna), but I've seen it connect to POSes in Alabama
and Virginia, and the call then traverses through whomever telcom is
used at the POS to complete the call.  With Skype, you have to pay extra
for Skype-Out minutes to get access to a POS to let you call landline
and cell phones; else, it's just a chat client between other Skype
users.  Just because I have an assigned phone number for Google Voice,
or other VOIP providers, doesn't mean that is the area code through
which the call is completed.  I'm not making chats over the Internet
between the clients.  I'm making calls that are to landlines, mobile
phones, and VOIP users assigned phone numbers.

You cannot use a SIP phone with Comcast's digital voice service, but you
can use a SIP phone with Comcast's Internet service.  SIP phones are
Internet phones hence VOIP.  You can use a Comcast SIP phone to use
Internet traffic to connect to Comcast's dedicated network.  SIP trunks
can also handle a variety of media (voice, video, data).  VOIP is just
the voice traffic.  SIP can setup and take down VOIP calls.  SIP works
with VOIP.

I use Google Voice, and that is VOIP to a free POS to connect to
landlines and cell phones.  I've used magicJack which is a similar
setup, but wasn't free, and why I switched to Google Voice.  I'm looking
at replacing Google Voice with Ooma, or similar VOIP service, but those
aren't free as is Google Voice.  I still have to traverse the Internet
to get to those VOIP providers instead of using a local dedicated
network for digital phone service.  I've not felt compelled to bother
with SIP phones since, for calls, those are just VOIP services, and I
don't care about videoconferencing, media, or other non-voice traffic.

So, to me, a digital voice line is one that uses a dedicated network to
make the call.  VOIP is over the public Internet.  Whether UDP or TCP is
used in the dedicated network for digital voice really isn't important
since packet order can still be guaranteed with UDP, plus losing a
packet isn't critical for voice communications, especially when compared
to the crappy call quality users are accustomed with cell phones.  I
didn't give up my old POTS line for many years, because cell phones
sucked on call quality.  I kept the POTS line for a couple years while I
trialed digital voice, and decided digital voice was nearly equal to
POTS (with the exception that POTS would still work even if there was an
outage at my ISP, a downed cable, broken modem, but now my cell phone
provides that backup).

Remember that even ancient telco POTS services were also chopped up
(multiplexed).  The age of a dedicated line per call is long long gone.

Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10 | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-21 05:42 -0800
  Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-01-21 09:19 -0600
    Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-21 20:07 +0100
      Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-01-21 13:52 -0600
        Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-01-21 20:46 -0600
          Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-01-22 00:29 -0600
            Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-22 16:38 +0000
            Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-01-22 23:46 -0600
          Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-22 13:42 +0100
            Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-01-22 23:49 -0600
              Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-23 10:44 +0100
                Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-01-23 14:21 -0600
    Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-22 08:14 -0800
    Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro Mark Lloyd <not.email@all.invalid> - 2025-01-22 17:51 +0000
  Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-21 11:12 -0500
  Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-21 16:25 +0000
    Re: Unable to remove "Windows Fax and Scan" from Windows 10 Pro "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-24 03:29 -0800

csiph-web