Is Virgin Media's VoIP offering 'true' VoIP?

[Luqybb91]

I have heard from multiple members on this forum that Virgin's VoIP service is not 'true' or 'real' VoIP, and that in fact it is a technology called 21CV that behaves like the old PSTN. But what I have discovered is that 21CV is actually the name of a programme, or project that Virgin has started, the goal of which is mass deployment of VoIP by replacing TDM switches with IP switches. I also came across a LinkedIn profile of someone who worked for Virgin on this very project, he too describes 21CV as a project to get all customers off of the old TDM switches.

In other words, 21CV is not some inferior technology to VoIP (like some make it out to be), it's just the name of a project to migrate all virgin customers over to VoIP. So from my understanding, everyone who has Virgin's VoIP service has 'true' Voip.

If I am wrong, or have some sort of misunderstanding, please explain why.

[Luqybb91]

I forgot to add to my comment, what would be the point in removing all TDM switches and replacing them with IP switches at every exchange, if the line from the exchange to the headend is analogue? Wouldn't that just be a massive bottleneck to any future upgrades?

I assume the decommissioning of the old infrastructure by 2025 also includes the lines between the exchange and headend? 

[nodrogd]

---

@Luqybb91 wrote:

I forgot to add to my comment, what would be the point in removing all TDM switches and replacing them with IP switches at every exchange, if the line from the exchange to the headend is analogue? Wouldn't that just be a massive bottleneck to any future upgrades?

I assume the decommissioning of the old infrastructure by 2025 also includes the lines between the exchange and headend? 

---

The current landline setup is analogue from customer to street fibre node, digital from node to headend (where the exchange is co-sited) where it converts back to analogue. 21CV currently takes out stage 1 above & digital goes straight to the headend exchange, missing out the node conversion. The analogue exchange will eventually be replaced by an IP system.

It is also worth pointing out that 21CV on cable does not pass through the CMTS at the headend, as a separate RF tunnel is used to transmit/receive the phone data. So if the CMTS were to fail, the internet would go down but the phone service should continue to work.

[Luqybb91]

---

@nodrogd wrote:

It is also worth pointing out that 21CV on cable does not pass through the CMTS at the headend, as a separate RF tunnel is used to transmit/receive the phone data. So if the CMTS were to fail, the internet would go down but the phone service should continue to work.

---

So is it different on fibre? Do they intend to eventually have phone data pass through the CMTS once it's fully IP based? 

[nodrogd]

---

@Luqybb91 wrote:

---

@nodrogd wrote:

It is also worth pointing out that 21CV on cable does not pass through the CMTS at the headend, as a separate RF tunnel is used to transmit/receive the phone data. So if the CMTS were to fail, the internet would go down but the phone service should continue to work.

---

So is it different on fibre? Do they intend to eventually have phone data pass through the CMTS once it's fully IP based? 

---

No advantage to doing this. To go through the CMTS would require the phones to be plugged into the Ethernet sockets & make the phone ports redundant, not to mention that you would lose the phone service on a CMTS fault. There is the possibility of rationalisation of the IP system to a couple of headend sites in future. This could easily be done through VMs core network resources in the same way as cable TV has evolved from 50+ separate reception sites to one single TV hub outside London & a backup near Liverpool.

[Luqybb91]

---

@nodrogd wrote:

No advantage to doing this. To go through the CMTS would require the phones to be plugged into the Ethernet sockets & make the phone ports redundant, not to mention that you would lose the phone service on a CMTS fault. There is the possibility of rationalisation of the IP system to a couple of headend sites in future. This could easily be done through VMs core network resources in the same way as cable TV has evolved from 50+ separate reception sites to one single TV hub outside London & a backup near Liverpool.

---

Let's assume the entire system is digital, and voice does go from the home all the way to the CMTS, wouldn't Virgin still use RJ11 instead of RJ45? Virgin only intends to send and receive voice, and from my understanding only RJ11 is requjred for voice.

[nodrogd]

---

@Luqybb91 wrote:

---

@nodrogd wrote:

No advantage to doing this. To go through the CMTS would require the phones to be plugged into the Ethernet sockets & make the phone ports redundant, not to mention that you would lose the phone service on a CMTS fault. There is the possibility of rationalisation of the IP system to a couple of headend sites in future. This could easily be done through VMs core network resources in the same way as cable TV has evolved from 50+ separate reception sites to one single TV hub outside London & a backup near Liverpool.

---

Let's assume the entire system is digital, and voice does go from the home all the way to the CMTS, wouldn't Virgin still use RJ11 instead of RJ45? Virgin only intends to send and receive voice, and from my understanding only RJ11 is requjred for voice.

---

Whats the point of putting traffic through an internet gateway when it is never going to leave VMs internal systems until it is processed either at the local headend or a centralised system if that is the future.

[Luqybb91]

---

@nodrogd wrote:

Whats the point of putting traffic through an internet gateway when it is never going to leave VMs internal systems until it is processed either at the local headend or a centralised system if that is the future.

---

Yeah that would be pretty strange haha. I was under the impression that RJ11 is just RJ45 but with less features, I didn't realise one is analogue and the other is digital, my bad.

So in your estimation, would it be better to go for a third party VOIP service over Virgin's? Or stick with Virgin because by 2025 (being optimistic) their entire infrastructure from customers home to headend will be IP/digital right? 

[Anonymous]

always go for a voip service. No way should anyone be paying for landline services now.
£10-20 for a "Landline" is crazy.

you can port your number over to someone like sipgate at a small one off cost. Never pay for a monthly fee and only top uop and pay for what you use.

If you want you can have a call package at monthly cost but who needs that.

unless you need a landline why not stick to mobile services.

[Luqybb91]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
always go for a voip service. No way should anyone be paying for landline services now.
£10-20 for a "Landline" is crazy.

you can port your number over to someone like sipgate at a small one off cost. Never pay for a monthly fee and only top uop and pay for what you use.

If you want you can have a call package at monthly cost but who needs that.

unless you need a landline why not stick to mobile services.

---

Yeah that's definitely costly, but thanks for recommending Sipgate, I'll definitely look into it. Out of curiosity, would you happen to know anything about BT's Digital voice? How does it compare to Virgins current VOIP service?

[Anonymous]

never used VM or BT. both are way to much of a rip off. I have 4 Sipgate lines.
Good to have some free numbers for spam calls when you Have to give one when signing up 🙂