"Synapse Syndrome" <syna...@NOSPAMgomez404.elitemail.org> wrote: > > the UK traditionally hasn't been able to get modern cell phones, thus > > the iPhone is much too advanced for their culture, cell towers... and > > pocketbooks.
> Er, what are you talking about? The UK, and Europe in general have been far > ahead of the US in uptake of mobile technology in this sector. 2G, 3G and > beyond. Do you have any idea? No, is the answer. Do some reading. I've > been travelling between the US and Europe since the mid 80's and heavily > throughout the late 90's and early this decade, so I have no doubt to what I > am saying right now. Mobiles were ubiquitous much earlier in the UK than > they were in the US.
what? when did that happen? the US is on a full scale transition to free 802.11 wireless, the old, slow 3G network doesn't stand a chance against a "free" service.
everyone knows cell phone companies are coming to an end. but only America saw it first and decided not to invest in a poor, slow and only "for pay" technology.
everything that is internet based should be FREE.
just like America.
learn about the future of IP calls.
the systems in the UK, Europe and Japan are completely laughable.
>> > the UK traditionally hasn't been able to get modern cell phones, thus >> > the iPhone is much too advanced for their culture, cell towers... and >> > pocketbooks.
>> Er, what are you talking about? The UK, and Europe in general have been >> far >> ahead of the US in uptake of mobile technology in this sector. 2G, 3G >> and >> beyond. Do you have any idea? No, is the answer. Do some reading.
> what? when did that happen? the US is on a full scale transition to free > 802.11 wireless, the old, slow 3G network doesn't stand a chance against > a "free" service.
> everyone knows cell phone companies are coming to an end. but only > America saw it first and decided not to invest in a poor, slow and only > "for pay" technology.
> everything that is internet based should be FREE.
> just like America.
> learn about the future of IP calls.
> the systems in the UK, Europe and Japan are completely laughable.
> free is better, trust me!
I see you have been doing some reading, and that was a nice and squirmy attempt at a back-pedal on your original bullshit statement. You come back with a development that has seen no major adoption yet, and there is no evidence, or past history, to say that the US will be any faster to adopt it than anywhere else.
Well, anyway, I am new to this newsgroup. I know have many Mac using friends, possibly nearly as many as PC owners; certainly more than average, due to the nature of my work, and I have extensive use of Macs that goes back around 15 years. But when it come to Usenet, the clowns really come out.
So far I have seen a couple of people who have reasoned arguments, or balanced views, and I respect people like that. But what I really am here for is for some amusement, from truely culls clowns. Have you met Genie-Boy?
>>> the UK traditionally hasn't been able to get modern cell phones, thus >>> the iPhone is much too advanced for their culture, cell towers... and >>> pocketbooks.
>> Er, what are you talking about? The UK, and Europe in general have been >> far >> ahead of the US in uptake of mobile technology in this sector. 2G, 3G and >> beyond. Do you have any idea? No, is the answer. Do some reading. I've >> been travelling between the US and Europe since the mid 80's and heavily >> throughout the late 90's and early this decade, so I have no doubt to what >> I >> am saying right now. Mobiles were ubiquitous much earlier in the UK than >> they were in the US.
> what? when did that happen? the US is on a full scale transition to free > 802.11 wireless, the old, slow 3G network doesn't stand a chance against > a "free" service.
> everyone knows cell phone companies are coming to an end. but only > America saw it first and decided not to invest in a poor, slow and only > "for pay" technology.
> everything that is internet based should be FREE.
> just like America.
You think America is "free"?
Nice delusion. I wish I could share it. Unfortunately, reality...
Mark Thompson wrote: > what? when did that happen? the US is on a full scale transition to free > 802.11 wireless, the old, slow 3G network doesn't stand a chance against > a "free" service.
The failed experiences of "free" municipal wireless proves there is no such "full scale transition to free wireless".
> everyone knows cell phone companies are coming to an end. but only > America saw it first and decided not to invest in a poor, slow and only > "for pay" technology.
"Everyone" does not include all the private investors and stock holders in cellular where investment is alive and well in this pay for use infrastructure.
> everything that is internet based should be FREE.
Anything that is free, has no value to your (open source excluded).
> just like America.
Federal welfare is not free, the tax payers pay for it.
> learn about the future of IP calls.
IP telephony is not near as good as traditional telephone calls.
> Mark Thompson wrote: >> what? when did that happen? the US is on a full scale transition to free >> 802.11 wireless, the old, slow 3G network doesn't stand a chance against >> a "free" service.
> The failed experiences of "free" municipal wireless proves there is no > such "full scale transition to free wireless".
>> everyone knows cell phone companies are coming to an end. but only >> America saw it first and decided not to invest in a poor, slow and only >> "for pay" technology.
> "Everyone" does not include all the private investors and stock holders > in cellular where investment is alive and well in this pay for use > infrastructure.
>> everything that is internet based should be FREE.
> Anything that is free, has no value to your (open source excluded).
>> just like America.
> Federal welfare is not free, the tax payers pay for it.
>> learn about the future of IP calls.
> IP telephony is not near as good as traditional telephone calls.
I disagree. I replaced "Ma Bell" with Comcast VOIP over a year ago and frankly, except that its WAY cheaper and has more features, I notice NO difference in service, quality, or reliability.
George Graves wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:19:28 -0800, DTC wrote >> IP telephony is not near as good as traditional telephone calls.
> I disagree. I replaced "Ma Bell" with Comcast VOIP over a year ago and > frankly, except that its WAY cheaper and has more features, I notice NO > difference in service, quality, or reliability.
In some cases VoIP can give telco a good run for the money, but I was mostly referring to the masses that look for think VoIP is a magic bullet to reduce costs, in spite of any quality issues.
In my case, I need direct 9600 bps modem connections and VoIP failed at that.
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:37:52 -0800, DTC wrote (in article <4Aooj.5113$0o7.1...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net>):
> George Graves wrote: >> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:19:28 -0800, DTC wrote >>> IP telephony is not near as good as traditional telephone calls.
>> I disagree. I replaced "Ma Bell" with Comcast VoIP over a year ago and >> frankly, except that its WAY cheaper and has more features, I notice NO >> difference in service, quality, or reliability.
> In some cases VoIP can give telco a good run for the money, but I was > mostly referring to the masses that look for think VoIP is a magic > bullet to reduce costs, in spite of any quality issues.
If one has a good, reliable, broadband connection, there should be no quality issues. I know people who use Vonage over cable modem and they have good quality too. OTOH, I have seen computer-based sotware VoIP systems that are simply lousy.
> In my case, I need direct 9600 bps modem connections and VoIP failed > at that.
You really need a good broadband connection for VoIP to work optimally. Cable modem seems to work best.
George Graves <gmgrav...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:19:28 -0800, DTC wrote > (in article <bPkoj.1995$uE.1...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>):
> > Mark Thompson wrote: > >> what? when did that happen? the US is on a full scale transition to free > >> 802.11 wireless, the old, slow 3G network doesn't stand a chance against > >> a "free" service.
> > The failed experiences of "free" municipal wireless proves there is no > > such "full scale transition to free wireless".
> >> everyone knows cell phone companies are coming to an end. but only > >> America saw it first and decided not to invest in a poor, slow and only > >> "for pay" technology.
> > "Everyone" does not include all the private investors and stock holders > > in cellular where investment is alive and well in this pay for use > > infrastructure.
> >> everything that is internet based should be FREE.
> > Anything that is free, has no value to your (open source excluded).
> >> just like America.
> > Federal welfare is not free, the tax payers pay for it.
> >> learn about the future of IP calls.
> > IP telephony is not near as good as traditional telephone calls.
> I disagree. I replaced "Ma Bell" with Comcast VOIP over a year ago and > frankly, except that its WAY cheaper and has more features, I notice NO > difference in service, quality, or reliability.
IP, IMW, has transition issues, but once they're nailed down, VOIP is just as good - better if you factor in price.
-- regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk Washington D.C.: District of Criminals
"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!
> >> > the UK traditionally hasn't been able to get modern cell phones, thus > >> > the iPhone is much too advanced for their culture, cell towers... and > >> > pocketbooks.
> >> Er, what are you talking about? The UK, and Europe in general have been > >> far > >> ahead of the US in uptake of mobile technology in this sector. 2G, 3G > >> and > >> beyond. Do you have any idea? No, is the answer. Do some reading.
> > what? when did that happen? the US is on a full scale transition to free > > 802.11 wireless, the old, slow 3G network doesn't stand a chance against > > a "free" service.
> > everyone knows cell phone companies are coming to an end. but only > > America saw it first and decided not to invest in a poor, slow and only > > "for pay" technology.
> > everything that is internet based should be FREE.
> > just like America.
> > learn about the future of IP calls.
> > the systems in the UK, Europe and Japan are completely laughable.
> > free is better, trust me!
> I see you have been doing some reading, and that was a nice and squirmy > attempt at a back-pedal on your original bullshit statement. You come back > with a development that has seen no major adoption yet, and there is no > evidence, or past history, to say that the US will be any faster to adopt it > than anywhere else.
> Well, anyway, I am new to this newsgroup. I know have many Mac using > friends, possibly nearly as many as PC owners; certainly more than average, > due to the nature of my work, and I have extensive use of Macs that goes > back around 15 years. But when it come to Usenet, the clowns really come > out.
That is generally true - if you read around usenet, you'll find examples of idiocy, delusion, sociopathy and general nastyness that far exceeds what you find in your neighbourhood fo the Real World.
This is nothing inherent to either Mac users, mac advocated, windows users, windows advocates, or people who inhabit the advocacy groups.
> So far I have seen a couple of people who have reasoned arguments, or > balanced views, and I respect people like that. But what I really am here > for is for some amusement, from truely culls clowns. Have you met > Genie-Boy?
> ss.
This stuff that goes on here in csma is better termed "greek tragedy" than "amusement", but YMMV.
-- regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk Washington D.C.: District of Criminals
"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!
DTC wrote: > George Graves wrote: >> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:19:28 -0800, DTC wrote >>> IP telephony is not near as good as traditional telephone calls.
>> I disagree. I replaced "Ma Bell" with Comcast VOIP over a year ago and >> frankly, except that its WAY cheaper and has more features, I notice NO >> difference in service, quality, or reliability.
> In some cases VoIP can give telco a good run for the money, but I was > mostly referring to the masses that look for think VoIP is a magic > bullet to reduce costs, in spite of any quality issues.
> In my case, I need direct 9600 bps modem connections and VoIP failed > at that.
Well of course, most voip uses the g.729 codec which needs 26kbs. Other codecs like g.711 are more hungry but work with fax. If you have a low latency connection under 50ms and low jitter, voip can be better than analog. I once had ISDN and the quality there was superior to analog but it used a full 64k pipe while on voice. Believe me, analog phone lines are at the bottom of the food chain. I use Packet8 over dry loop dsl through a cobalt raq converted to a firewall/router. It's sad that people are forever comparing something that has a lot of untapped potential with a narrowband analog pots line. The quality of the phone plugged into your voip system has a great deal to do with quality as well. I went DECT6 on mine, my old 2.4 ghz phone was subject to interference from all kinds of unknowns and just didn't sound as good, cordless phones have their own codecs too and DECT 6.0 is superior to all previous ones.
|
