Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Giving up the landline phone for cell-only service.

This is topic Giving up the landline phone for cell-only service. in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=005658

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-24-2008, 07:18 PM:

They are saying that more and more people are now using justs their cell phones for their primary telephone service. My nephew, in fact, does just that. It's a cheaper way to go as it avoids all those taxes and fees stacked on fees the landline phone company charges.

For me, there are two problems with that scenario: I HATE the physicality of the cell phone itself. It's small and clumsy; I like a big earpiece that covers my ear and a handset that I can hold to my ear with my shoulder and grip with a full hand. The cell phone is just too damn wimpy. But even more of a negative is that in our apartment, we've got a fairly elaborate telephone network with three phones in the bedroom -- one on either side of the bed and one on my desk, one each in the kitchen, living room, bathroom (yes, bathroom so it can be answered in the shower) and two in the guest room, one by the bed and one at a small workbench. We want whatever telephone service we use to be able to be reached from any of those phones.

So, if we were going to use our cell service, how would it be possible to interconnect to my existing telephones? If the cell providers don't have some kind of an interface that can just hook up to that existing circuit that drives all those phones, then it means you would have to carry that stupid little cell phone wherever you go in the house, otherwise you would miss calls if you were in a room where the cell was not.

Even worse, even if I do carry it around the house ALL THE TIME (never gonna happen), the one great thing that the landline does for us is that it connects to a little device which senses when the telephone line is in use and it then drops the sound system volume down 15db (or off, if so desired). This is something I just couldn't do without. I have speakers in every room in the apartment and we play music, tv, film sound throughout the house much of the time when we are home and almost all of the time when either of us are home alone, so if I am in the bedroom and a call comes in, with a cell phone I would have to run to the living room to turn down the system; that's going backward in our own "personal" technology about 30 years.

So here's a question -- does anyone know if there IS an interface that would allow a cell phone to send a duplex signal to a standard telephone line? Surely with all that cell technology and bluetooth stuff, they could figure out a way so that regular telephones could be used with cellphone systems. If we can't get our existing household telephones to work with the cellphone service, then we will never be convinced to use the cell service as our primary telephone service.

And PS -- the way we get around the "Telephone Company" prices and their never-ending nickel & dimeing us to death -- we use Vonage off the cable service. It powers all our phones right out of the Vonage VoIP broadband router. And it's $24.95 a month....never changes no matter how much we use it for long distance, plus, it comes with every feature the phone company offers and more. Whereas the phone company charges you individually for each and every feature, Vonage has all those features, (stuff like call forwarding, voice mail, call waiting, etc.) all included in their monthly rate. Still, I wouldn't need Vonage at, IF I could get the cell to work the existing phones.

Any ideas?

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-24-2008, 08:31 PM:

Sorry Frank, can't answer your question about somehow linking a cell phone to regular phones (I think that's what you're asking).

A couple months ago I decided I had to have an iPhone 3G. To help justify the extra monthly expense, I decided to dump my Qwest landline. I did this knowing that cell service is very touchy where I live, since there are hills between me and the cell tower(s). However the iPhone's cell performance is better than any other cell phone I've owned, and I convinced myself it would work.

It seemed like a good idea at the time.

After living cell-only for a while, I discovered even my iPhone 3G can't deal with the dead zone at one end of my house where the bedrooms are. I was getting cut off repeatedly. This turned out to be a deal breaker.

Also, I can't get used to the idea of not being able to just pick up a phone receiver and pressing "9-1-1" in some kind of emergency. Having to unlock the iPhone or retrieve it from its charger or who knows what just bugs me.

So long story short is I got my landline back. I have the absolute rock-bottom cheapest service Qwest offers, no frills. With all taxes it runs me about $24/mo. I will have to learn to live with it, unless AT&T happens to build a cell tower closer to me. And even then I'd probably keep the landline.

On the plus side, a landline is less susceptible to power outages that would cut off a digital voice service like Comcast. I don't much like the prospect of no phone service due to severe weather causing a power interruption.

Straying slightly off-topic: A guy where I work bought one of those Magic Jack devices you plug into a computer to get voice service via the Internet (basically it's VOIP). He says it works great. But the computer has to be turned on all the time! Forget that.

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 12-24-2008, 08:47 PM:

Don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but:

Law Enforcement and the Government do not need a warrant and/or wiretapping permission to listen in on your cell phone conversations. As a matter of fact, with the right equipment, I can listen in on your cell conversations without getting into a whole lotta trouble.

If you use a landline, they need to get the warrant/subpoena from a judge. They usually need to have a very good reason to wiretap your landline phone, like trying to sell a senate seat or something.

I prefer to have both. Simply because who knows what kind of wackiness that could possibly ensue - I would want to be able to call 911 from a reliable phone.

Anyways.....

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 12-24-2008, 09:47 PM:

We have both simply that I have Qwest DSL for the internet.

No way am I going wireless at home since I do encounter issues with wireless connections at work-and that wireless service is a locked service where I had to give my laptop settings to the company to give me a key to use the system.

But, doing the cel thing is really the way to go since those plan packages, if priced right, can be to your advantage..why some landline companies now offer these basic plan packages to bring their customers back.

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 12-24-2008, 10:44 PM:

Y'Know what else I don't like about cellular phones?

When you're really, really pissed off at somebody you can't slam the receiver down and hang up on them.
[Wink]

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 12-25-2008, 11:13 AM:

Been without landline for about three months now - no issues so far. Both of the house locations have/had good cell tower coverage so going without Embarq may be a viable way to go.

Getting ready to turn on Cox Cable for broadband in the new house. My brother uses his T-Mobile service for wireless broadband to his laptop at the house. That way is too slow for me. I was a DSL user for the last seven years - we'll see how this cable thing goes, reliability and cost wise.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 12-25-2008, 11:20 AM:

quote: Frank Angel
does anyone know if there IS an interface that would allow a cell phone to send a duplex signal to a standard telephone line?

It can be done, Frank. It's been several years, but I once had such a box. We had an old remote broadcast setup that worked on a dial-up basis. It needed to hear dial tone, and connected by touch tone. I got the adapter from our local Motorola dealer, since that was the brand of the cell phone.

Don't know if you can still get them, or who would have 'em, but it has been done.

--------

After 15 years, our landline number found its way to some off-shore med factory. Before we changed the number we were getting some 20 calls a day [Mad]

I kept the line, thinking I HAD to have a hard wire for 911 service. In reality, we haven't picked up the line since I changed the number, and nobody knows what the new number is.

Every member of my family has a cell phone, and my office has a Vonage line.

We really haven't used, or missed our Qwest line, like I thought we would.

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 12-25-2008, 03:29 PM:

Same here. We use our cell phones almost exclusively. I rarely make outgoing calls from the hard-wired phone, but it's part of our cable package or else we would've had it shut off long ago. I use it so infrequently, and if I do I just hit it from my PDA's address book, that I have trouble remembering the number.

Frank, my cell is usually attached to my belt in a very comfortable leather pouch. If it rings, I am right there to pick it up. No worries about having multiple phones in each room - the cell phone follows you if you want it to.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-25-2008, 07:29 PM:

I am an advocate of hard-wired telephone service for a bunch of reasons:

- sound quality (I hate talking to people on cell phones because the digital variety that is common now tends to clip the first and last bit of each word; also, most sets lack proper sidetone and thus people tend to shout into them)

- privacy/security (as Dennis mentioned above)

- reliability in power outages (many cell tower sites have limited or no power backup in case of power failure; telephone central offices run on 48v battery power and have generators that can run for days without central power; also, cell phones themselves require battery power); the POTS infrastructure is built to a completely different and much higher standard than the cell phone infrastructure

- telephone listing (is it even possible to be listed in the phone book with a cell phone? also, E911 services can link a POTS line to a physical address; cell phone location systems tend to be less precise)

- DSL (it can be difficult or impossible to get DSL service without voice service at the same location)

- fax and modem connectivity (I don't know how many people still care about these services, but they require POTS lines)

- ability for multiple people to talk on same line by picking up multiple extensions

- ability for multiple lines to appear on a single telephone set (more useful in a business setting than in a home)

To answer Frank's question, it _is_ possible to connect a cell phone to a home's telephones, but I don't know the details on how. Muting a stereo system is do-able; an "A-lead control box" for a 1A2 key system (which does not actually require a KSU) will provide a contact closure when a receiver is lifted and that could be used to control a relay to control the sound system. There might be an easier way to do this as well.

One potential issue with such a system (and with the ATAs that Vonage and other VOIP providers offer) is that they may not necessarily be able to ring more than one or two telephone sets. A standard POTS line will be able to ring five sets (each with an REN of 1.0, though sets with electronic ringers usually have a lower REN). Ask about this before buying anything.

Posted by Jack Ondracek (Member # 1466) on 12-26-2008, 12:52 AM:

quote: Scott Norwood
One potential issue with such a system (and with the ATAs that Vonage and other VOIP providers offer) is that they may not necessarily be able to ring more than one or two telephone sets.

That's a good point, though I haven't tried to find out how many an ATA will do.

Mine is wired in to my Panasonic KSU. It triggers it fine.

*** FRANK ***

Check this out. It may be what you're looking for.

http://www.cellsocket.com/

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 12-26-2008, 09:29 AM:

My plumber wears a small receiver clipped to his ear like a hearing aid, to keep his hands free while working. He works at great speed, and doesn't need to use his hands for the phone at all. I suppose the phone transmits from his pocket or belt.

My wife bought a new hybrid Camry that transmits her cell phone from her handbag to the car's sound system even if it's not turned on. (Blue Tooth?)

And a grand-niece makes all her international calls from her laptop to the landlines of relatives and friends overseas, saving her a bundle.

So with the rapid development of cellphone applications, perhaps the interface Frank seeks will become generally available before long, if the landline companies can absorb the economic consequences of the transition in timely fashion.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-26-2008, 10:05 AM:

I have never owned a cell phone although my wife has one. There's no way we're disconnecting our landline - cell service is too spotty and if one of us happened to sit on the phone, or it fell into the toilet or got left somewhere, we would be out of touch. I personally don't feel the need for one in most cases -- if I'm at work, there are phones everywhere and if we travel, I can use Lynn's phone.

Even if I do get my own cell, which I suppose will happen at some point, I just don't want to have that thing following me around all the time. I like the idea that I can go out for a drive, or to dinner or to the movie or whatever and I am NOT AVAILABLE, dammit.

Posted by Chris Slycord (Member # 4239) on 12-26-2008, 11:58 AM:

quote: Dennis Benjamin
Law Enforcement and the Government do not need a warrant and/or wiretapping permission to listen in on your cell phone conversations. As a matter of fact, with the right equipment, I can listen in on your cell conversations without getting into a whole lotta trouble.

If you use a landline, they need to get the warrant/subpoena from a judge. They usually need to have a very good reason to wiretap your landline phone, like trying to sell a senate seat or something.

In short: No.
Without a warrant, it is illegal for them to intercept your calls, whether they are from a land-line or wireless. Just because you CAN do it with certain equipment doesn't make it legal.

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 12-26-2008, 12:50 PM:

Wife and I ditched land lines 3 years ago. No regrets.

Posted by Kenneth Wuepper (Member # 1174) on 12-26-2008, 02:10 PM:

Mike,

You always have the option of "turning it OFF!" as we ask all of our movie patrons to do.

KEN [Frown]

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 12-26-2008, 04:09 PM:

quote: Chris Slycord
In short: No.
Without a warrant, it is illegal for them to intercept your calls, whether they are from a land-line or wireless. Just because you CAN do it with certain equipment doesn't make it legal.

Dude - you have no idea whats going on out there in the wireless world. Have you READ the Patriot Act?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-26-2008, 04:38 PM:

Whoa, Jack -- that Cell-Socket interface is exactly what I am looking for -- many thanks. It seems a fairly model-specific, although they do indicate they will be expanding the models that the unit can accommodate. I'll follow this closely!

Scott hits on some substantial reasons why one would want to use standard telephones instead of a cell phone. Very valid. I know first hand about outages. When we had the blackout in NYC a few years ago. A power outage is a time when communicating becomes quite critical and it became immediately obvious that you really want a system that is NOT dependent on the power gird for communications; our cell phones were useless.

And for us, the main reason we want to use our standard phones is because of our existing setup with phones in multiple rooms. And Tim, even though, yes, you can carry the cell unit around with you, that still renders your phone service as personal, not communal. Only you can answer an incomming call. In a home with multiple extensions like ours, any one of us can answer one of the extensions in any room anyone happens to be in -- a major feature for us. The cell phone without an interface such as this cell-socket thing will always remain a personal phone and fairly unworkable in a household with many people. Besides, I HATE the idea of being tethered to some electronic thing hanging off of me....besides, there's no belt or pockets in my jammies -- my perfered style of attire a good portion of the time when I am home!

Scott, as for Vonage, and I'll assume other VoLP systems, they can easily ring multiple phones, especially if you are using the solid state "electronic" phones. As I said, we have a total of 8 phones, but we don't have all of them ringing at once. As you point out, the number of ring circuits they can drive are limited, but for most home setups it's usually plenty. We only have two ringers that we have switched on; one is an old mechanical unit -- a very unique Bell Telephone stand-alone ringer they offered only for a short time but one which we love and still use. It's a box with two beautifully sounding bells of different pitches that don't "ring" as in a standard oscillating telephone ringer, but the striker hits each bell only once for each ring cycle resulting in a very gentle and distinctive dual tone "ding dong." It can be heard through-out the apartment. One other electronic phone in the guest room is set to ring as well.

As for the unit that lowers the sound system -- it's more elegant than an ON-OFF relay; this unit is fed the phone signal and also the Left and Right channel in and out of the stereo signal. When any phone on the line is picked up or when it encounteres a ring signal, it smoothly fades the two channels of audio to either full MUTE or -15db. The thing is the size of a cigarette pack, yet it is one of the most functional things of all the gadgets I've ever come across. I've tried to buy more units to use in other systems I've set up over the years but the company has long gone out of business and there is no schematic. One of these days I am going to rip it apart and dissect it.