Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richmond Newsgroups: uk.telecom,uk.telecom.voip Subject: Re: Interconnection with POTS Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2026 10:07:51 +0000 Organization: Frantic Message-ID: <82342zy96w.fsf@example.com> References: <82v7g2uk0q.fsf@example.com> <82ms1eugqr.fsf@example.com> <10ml102$1kgul$1@dont-email.me> <10mlvmo$1hfpc$4@dont-email.me> <10mo38f$2l38u$1@dont-email.me> <82cy28uyuy.fsf@example.com> <10mvi0f$11sl6$1@dont-email.me> <82bjhowrqs.fsf@example.com> <10mvk6o$12ouj$1@dont-email.me> <827bscwpd9.fsf@example.com> <10n19m4$1je3i$6@dont-email.me> <10n1ajs$1jva6$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: solani.org; logging-data="358533"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cancel-Lock: sha1:/vIPJplUyGDGj3yQMCKnpRtDaPw= sha1:I77jZ4P4l6nDpW1bBSXipdy/bxg= X-User-ID: eJwFwYkBgDAIA8CV5Emo41Aw+4/gHYLGqSSYEFRatVCG9MS2ub4ubpz3pPYRzXRnL+DciR8pNRGY Xref: csiph.com uk.telecom:38963 uk.telecom.voip:9185 David Wade writes: > On 17/02/2026 08:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 16/02/2026 17:49, Richmond wrote: >>> Mark Carver writes: >>> >>>> On 16/02/2026 16:57, Richmond wrote: >>>>> Mark Carver writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 13/02/2026 21:17, Richmond wrote: >>>>>>> David Wade writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> specialise dinfrastructure to be maintained.  Increasing >>>>>>>>> numbers of people (me included) have ditched land lines, since >>>>>>>>> mobile phones do the job better.  Those who want to retain a >>>>>>>>> service equivalent to POTS can use VoIP, which uses the same >>>>>>>>> infrastructure as everything else that moves our data around. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So true, why would any one want a phone that only works when >>>>>>>> plugged in to a wall socket... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Because you can have a mobile phone aswell, but the landline is >>>>>>> better, because mobile phones are crap. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, you're right, they've been a total and utter consumer >>>>>> failure, so few people worldwide bother with one. >>>>> What >>>>>> you've done there is distorted what I said into something else, >>>>>> >>>>> and >>>>> then responding to that. >>>>> I can have an >>>>>> opinion about mobile phones which is different from >>>>> >>>>>> yours. I base my opinion on my own experience of the quality of >>>>>> mobile >>>>> phone calls. >>>> >>>> I've distorted nothing, you stated, quote "mobile phones are crap", >>>> it's there above in black and white !. >>>> >>>> What you should have said is mobile phones, in your house, are >>>> crap, YMMV >>> >>> You've equated 'crap' with not a commercial success. You'll be >>> telling me Windows isn't crap next. >> Well there isn't much choice >>> over windows, is there? >> It succeeds despite being crap. >> > > But if you are deploying it in a corporate or enterprise environment > its not "crap", it pretty much just works. Yes you can do all the same > things with Linux desktops but to do so you need to build your own > tool kits. Look at the issues the EU is facing as it tries to drop > Microsoft. > > >> Of course mobile phones are crap too - what consumer product is not, >> these days? - but they are not so crappy that people with a choice >> don't use them., >> > I don't find them "crappy", perhaps overpriced, but "crappy", really? > They are crap yes, they cut out and drop calls and stutter, they miss incoming calls, EE doesn't even work at all. The only reason for their success is that they are mobile. And the only reason people ditch their landlines is because they've had to pay for a mobile call package to avoid 25ppm, and they don't want to pay for another call package to use the landline. Your mileage may vary, especially if you live next to a mobile phone mast.