Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > uk.telecom > #38892 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-02-12 14:13 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-02-15 16:33 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 105 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to uk.telecom
Virgin Media's Digital Voice system Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-02-12 14:13 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-02-12 14:49 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-02-12 15:24 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-02-12 15:30 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-02-12 17:00 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-02-12 17:51 +0000
Interconnection with POTS (was: Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-02-13 01:44 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS (was: Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system) David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2026-02-13 16:54 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-02-13 20:57 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-02-13 21:17 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2026-02-13 22:38 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-02-14 09:27 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> - 2026-02-16 16:52 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-02-16 16:57 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> - 2026-02-16 17:29 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-02-16 17:49 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-17 08:42 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-02-17 08:58 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-02-17 10:07 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-02-17 10:11 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-17 13:24 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-02-17 13:55 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-17 14:35 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-02-17 21:39 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> - 2026-02-17 21:46 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-02-18 10:49 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-18 12:05 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-02-18 13:13 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-18 14:36 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-02-18 15:30 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-18 17:50 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2026-02-18 12:05 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-02-18 13:14 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-02-18 10:47 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-02-18 13:19 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-02-18 13:25 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-02-18 15:34 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS Julian Macassey <julian@n6are.com> - 2026-02-25 12:56 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-25 13:20 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-02-25 14:01 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-25 14:14 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-02-25 19:31 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2026-02-25 19:55 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-02-26 13:16 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2026-02-26 17:11 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-02-16 19:28 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-17 08:39 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2026-02-16 17:18 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-02-18 10:33 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-02-18 10:38 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-02-18 10:56 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS Roger Mills <mills37.fslife@gmail.com> - 2026-02-13 23:09 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-02-14 03:12 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-14 10:13 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-02-14 15:28 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-02-14 16:51 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-14 19:14 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-02-14 22:05 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-02-15 09:25 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-02-15 12:31 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-15 20:29 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-14 19:11 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-02-15 12:00 +0100
Re: Interconnection with POTS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-15 20:34 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS (was: Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system) Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-02-15 11:58 +0100
Re: Interconnection with POTS "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-02-15 12:39 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> - 2026-02-15 18:24 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-02-16 16:35 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> - 2026-02-16 19:35 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-02-17 09:28 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-02-18 10:44 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-02-24 11:15 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2026-02-24 12:45 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-02-18 10:28 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-15 20:33 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-02-15 20:43 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-02-16 16:45 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-02-16 19:15 +0000
Re: Interconnection with POTS The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-17 08:36 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-02-15 11:55 +0100
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-02-12 18:23 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-13 10:02 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-02-13 12:46 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-02-13 13:07 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-02-13 14:58 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-02-13 15:54 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-14 10:07 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2026-02-14 11:04 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-02-14 13:24 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> - 2026-02-14 16:01 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-02-14 16:46 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-14 19:12 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-02-14 22:08 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-02-14 22:42 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-02-14 15:32 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system Julian Macassey <julian@n6are.com> - 2026-02-16 13:55 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> - 2026-02-16 14:24 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-02-16 15:24 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> - 2026-02-16 16:06 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-02-16 16:17 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-02-16 15:29 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-02-17 08:32 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-02-15 11:53 +0100
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-02-15 13:21 +0000
Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-02-15 16:33 +0100
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-12 14:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Virgin Media's Digital Voice system |
| Message-ID | <82v7g2uk0q.fsf@example.com> |
I read that VM uses SIP for its business services, but for residential services it uses its own digital voice system. Why does it do this you might wonder? Call me a cynic, but I would say it is so that it can never interoperate with the SIP telephone network, and they can always charge a connection fee. This is the same approach of Google and Amazon, just refuse to co-operate and so make life difficult for customers. So there it is, we've destroyed the telephone network and handed ourselves over to corporations to feed parasitically on us. All this was started by Margaret Thatcher. Without these arbitrary contrived obsticals there would be no reason for charging separately for voice calls as if they are different from any other internet service.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-12 14:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ytg*xO3yA@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #38892 |
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: > I read that VM uses SIP for its business services, but for residential > services it uses its own digital voice system. Why does it do this you > might wonder? Call me a cynic, but I would say it is so that it can > never interoperate with the SIP telephone network, and they can always > charge a connection fee. This is the same approach of Google and Amazon, > just refuse to co-operate and so make life difficult for customers. > > So there it is, we've destroyed the telephone network and handed > ourselves over to corporations to feed parasitically on us. All this was > started by Margaret Thatcher. > > Without these arbitrary contrived obsticals there would be no reason for > charging separately for voice calls as if they are different from any > other internet service. I don't have any particular information about Virgin's implementation, but that sounds similar to all the other domestic broadband providers. You pay for 'a landline' and you get a socket on the back of the router that provides it. You get a similar level of service as you did with a copper landline - no more no less. They use SIP internally but they don't expose that to customers. For some it's possible to work out the SIP credentials and connect your own SIP endpoint, but they would rather you didn't do that. I expect Virgin also use SIP behind the scenes. It doesn't sound surprising to me. Landline telecoms is not a great revenue earner for ISPs any more - people just don't use them enough. But what they really don't want is having to support domestic users using their own SIP clients - it's just too complex to setup and debug. Just like ISPs prefer not to run their own email service nowadays - it's not worth the hassle. If you want to use SIP, port your number to a third party provider who allows you the level of access you desire. Many have been discussed in these groups. You just pay them acording to your requirements. Calls are not free and never have been - if you want free voice chat then use some other service like Whatsapp or Facetime. Theo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-12 15:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <82ms1eugqr.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #38893 |
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >> I read that VM uses SIP for its business services, but for residential >> services it uses its own digital voice system. Why does it do this you >> might wonder? Call me a cynic, but I would say it is so that it can >> never interoperate with the SIP telephone network, and they can always >> charge a connection fee. This is the same approach of Google and Amazon, >> just refuse to co-operate and so make life difficult for customers. >> >> So there it is, we've destroyed the telephone network and handed >> ourselves over to corporations to feed parasitically on us. All this was >> started by Margaret Thatcher. >> >> Without these arbitrary contrived obsticals there would be no reason for >> charging separately for voice calls as if they are different from any >> other internet service. > > I don't have any particular information about Virgin's implementation, but > that sounds similar to all the other domestic broadband providers. You pay > for 'a landline' and you get a socket on the back of the router that > provides it. You get a similar level of service as you did with a copper > landline - no more no less. > > They use SIP internally but they don't expose that to customers. For some > it's possible to work out the SIP credentials and connect your own SIP > endpoint, but they would rather you didn't do that. I expect Virgin also > use SIP behind the scenes. > > It doesn't sound surprising to me. Landline telecoms is not a great revenue > earner for ISPs any more - people just don't use them enough. But what they > really don't want is having to support domestic users using their own SIP > clients - it's just too complex to setup and debug. > > Just like ISPs prefer not to run their own email service nowadays - it's > not worth the hassle. > > If you want to use SIP, port your number to a third party provider who > allows you the level of access you desire. Many have been discussed in > these groups. You just pay them acording to your requirements. Calls are > not free and never have been - if you want free voice chat then use some > other service like Whatsapp or Facetime. > I think what I am trying to do is work out which charges are for which costs. To answer your last point first, I have already transferred my line to SIP, and in fact I have two SIP services configured on the same router. But some of the people I phone use Virgin Media, and they are not the type of people who will be configuring routers. The problem of configuration could be solved by providing preconfigured equipment which has been tested. So considering the costs, I asked before somewhere why we need to pay for calls if we are all on VOIP, which we will be presumably by the end of January '27. I accept that services cost money, but we are all paying for the fibre broadband. So why are there additional costs for using it? I think you replied to me before that it is because of connection charges. As I understand it, if you know a SIP address, e.g. 666666@voipfine.co.uk, then you can phone it directly using your own SIP account. How is this different from connecting to Wikipedia, or downloading a file? Why does it have to be a special case internet service with special case charges? It's not like Netflix, Netflix makes films, and making films costs money. But I don't pay my ISP to watch Netflix, or BBC Iplayer. Perhaps someone does? But the data transferred is considerably more than for a voice call. I think corporations would like to move to a monopolistic or walled garden situation, as Whatsapp is enjoying. Imagine if everyone in the world decided to use the same open source software to make calls. We just get an account and tell people the ID. It runs on smartphones and desktops. That's it, who needs a landline? How much would a call cost per minute? Nothing, if you measure it like that. But we all pay for the fibre.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-12 15:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mv6a0fFlko2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #38894 |
Richmond wrote: > Imagine if everyone in the > world decided to use the same open source software to make calls. We > just get an account and tell people the ID. It runs on smartphones and > desktops. That's it, who needs a landline? How much would a call cost > per minute? Nothing Imagine the level of voip spam you'd get ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-12 17:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10ml102$1kgul$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38894 |
On 12/02/2026 15:24, Richmond wrote: > The problem of configuration could be solved by providing preconfigured > equipment which has been tested. And to ensure that it remained as tested, you would keep the credential secret and not allow the user access. Oops! I think that is exactly how consumer "Digital Voice" is implemented! > As I understand it, if you know a SIP address, > e.g.666666@voipfine.co.uk, then you can phone it directly using your This looks to be a VoIP provider type address; if you were really going direct, the address would have personal domain name, so you'd be contacting something like sips:lounge@the-house-of-john-smith.example > own SIP account. How is this different from connecting to Wikipedia, or I think you mean without using any SIP account! The reasons are very similar to reasons why nearly every one sends email via their ISP's outbound relay, and receives it by IMAP. The system that Demon used, originally, was to make their customers full status mail nodes, with SMTP both ways, but that wouldn't work well these days as many destination would refuse to accept the incoming traffic, to avoid abuse. (I think there is no even a trend to doing email via web servers, even for outbound). The Demon way of handling email was also helped because they gave people public IP addresses, and personal domain names. You would need personal domain names to do direct VoIP, and public addresses would help, although dynamic DNS would be a work round (but someone has to pay for that). An added reason is that VoIP always had to interwork with the traditional phone system and you needed someone to operate that interface. > downloading a file? Why does it have to be a special case internet > service with special case charges? Telephones were an area in which it was traditional to pay time based charges. In any case, you will pay for the infrastructure one way or another. I think that the internet ended up mainly fixed fee because it too expensive to bill on real usage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-12 17:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <82ikc1vois.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #38896 |
David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> writes: > On 12/02/2026 15:24, Richmond wrote: >> The problem of configuration could be solved by providing >> preconfigured equipment which has been tested. > > And to ensure that it remained as tested, you would keep the > credential secret and not allow the user access. Oops! I think that > is exactly how consumer "Digital Voice" is implemented! You can allow someone to see something without allowing them to change it. And all they really need to see is their SIP URI. >> As I understand it, if you know a SIP address, >> e.g.666666@voipfine.co.uk, then you can phone it directly using your > > This looks to be a VoIP provider type address; if you were really > going direct, the address would have personal domain name, so you'd be > contacting something like sips:lounge@the-house-of-john-smith.example I don't know what difference this makes. If you want to have your own SIP service by registering your own domain, yes, but either way it is like an email address. 666666@voipfone.co.uk is a unique user, SIP URI, (Fine was a freudian slip, I meant fone). > >> own SIP account. How is this different from connecting to Wikipedia, >> or > > I think you mean without using any SIP account! I don't really. I mean a SIP URI. The address is part of the protocol as it is with email. You can still set up your own email server if you want to. You just have to know much more than you used to. > > The reasons are very similar to reasons why nearly every one sends > email via their ISP's outbound relay, and receives it by IMAP. The > system that Demon used, originally, was to make their customers full > status mail nodes, with SMTP both ways, but that wouldn't work well > these days as many destination would refuse to accept the incoming > traffic, to avoid abuse. (I think there is no even a trend to doing > email via web servers, even for outbound). You now have to provide DMARC information in the headers yes, but that doesn't mean you have to use a third party email provider. It is more convenient as you don't need to configure it. > > The Demon way of handling email was also helped because they gave > people public IP addresses, and personal domain names. You would need > personal domain names to do direct VoIP, and public addresses would > help, although dynamic DNS would be a work round (but someone has to > pay for that). You can use direct VOIP on a VOIP provider's domain. I am not sure why this means you have to pay by the minute. A&A allows direct VOIP calls (if you configure it). > > An added reason is that VoIP always had to interwork with the > traditional phone system and you needed someone to operate that > interface. That system will be gone by January 31, and many calls must already be between VOIP systems. > >> downloading a file? Why does it have to be a special case internet >> service with special case charges? > > Telephones were an area in which it was traditional to pay time based > charges. That's not a reason for continuing to do it. > > In any case, you will pay for the infrastructure one way or another. > > I think that the internet ended up mainly fixed fee because it too > expensive to bill on real usage. I can make a video call free but I have to pay for an audio call. If I am using Google Meet they make some money out of me, but does that account for the difference? audio is less data. I can use an Amazon device to make free calls, even to landlines. I had to pay for the device, and they will try to sell me subscriptions for music, video, etc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-13 01:44 +0000 |
| Subject | Interconnection with POTS (was: Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system) |
| Message-ID | <10mlvmo$1hfpc$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38896 |
On 2026/2/12 17:0:49, David Woolley wrote: [snip] > An added reason is that VoIP always had to interwork with the > traditional phone system and you needed someone to operate that interface. Is the entire world going VoIP (or, at least, turning off its POTS)? I presume the interworking - interface - will continue in some places. > >> downloading a file? Why does it have to be a special case internet >> service with special case charges? > > Telephones were an area in which it was traditional to pay time based > charges. > > In any case, you will pay for the infrastructure one way or another. > > I think that the internet ended up mainly fixed fee because it too > expensive to bill on real usage. Anytime call plans are available on both landlines (while they still exist) and VoIP; they're quite expensive on both. They're also available on mobile (cellular), usually for less, but it's hard to tell because the mobile operators tend to "throw in" unlimited minutes with other sorts of things (e. g. so many GB). -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Alcohol is way ahead of cocaine as the world's deadliest drug, hastening around three million people per year into their graves (cocaine and heroin and crystal meth account for around half a million annually). - Revd Richard Coles, RT 2021/7/3-9
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-13 16:54 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Interconnection with POTS (was: Re: Virgin Media's Digital Voice system) |
| Message-ID | <fe7a97aa5c.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM> |
| In reply to | #38899 |
In message <10mlvmo$1hfpc$4@dont-email.me>
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> Is the entire world going VoIP (or, at least, turning off its POTS)?
I'd expect so, wouldn't you? POTS requires a lot of expensive
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.
David
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-13 20:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Interconnection with POTS |
| Message-ID | <10mo38f$2l38u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38905 |
On 13/02/2026 16:54, David Higton wrote: > In message <10mlvmo$1hfpc$4@dont-email.me> > "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> Is the entire world going VoIP (or, at least, turning off its POTS)? > Many have already done so. You can deliver VOIP over low bandwidth internet, over LEO satellite, or over 5G. Yes modern mobile is VOIP! > I'd expect so, wouldn't you? POTS requires a lot of expensive > 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... > > David Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-13 21:17 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Interconnection with POTS |
| Message-ID | <82cy28uyuy.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #38906 |
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-13 22:38 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Interconnection with POTS |
| Message-ID | <a8f8b6aa5c.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM> |
| In reply to | #38907 |
In message <82cy28uyuy.fsf@example.com>
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> 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.
I suspect you've not been using a decent, modern mobile phone, because
my experience is the opposite. Plus my mobile is always with me, so I
can use it all over the place - I'm not restricted to just at home.
And of course my smartphone can do hugely more stuff than any landline
ever could.
David
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-14 09:27 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Interconnection with POTS |
| Message-ID | <821pinhdyg.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #38908 |
David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> writes: > In message <82cy28uyuy.fsf@example.com> > Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: > >> David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> 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. > > I suspect you've not been using a decent, modern mobile phone, because > my experience is the opposite. Perhaps you have a good signal in your house. I don't. But then often the people I am talking to don't have a good signal either, and whole words can get chopped out, changing the meaning of the sentence. > Plus my mobile is always with me, so I > can use it all over the place - I'm not restricted to just at home. > And of course my smartphone can do hugely more stuff than any landline > ever could. But as I said, I can have both, I don't have to choose one or the other.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-16 16:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Interconnection with POTS |
| Message-ID | <10mvi0f$11sl6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38907 |
On 13/02/2026 21:17, Richmond wrote: > David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-16 16:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Interconnection with POTS |
| Message-ID | <82bjhowrqs.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #38949 |
Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> writes: > On 13/02/2026 21:17, Richmond wrote: >> David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-16 17:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Interconnection with POTS |
| Message-ID | <10mvk6o$12ouj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38950 |
On 16/02/2026 16:57, Richmond wrote: > Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> writes: > >> On 13/02/2026 21:17, Richmond wrote: >>> David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> 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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-16 17:49 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Interconnection with POTS |
| Message-ID | <827bscwpd9.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #38951 |
Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> writes: > On 16/02/2026 16:57, Richmond wrote: >> Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> writes: >> >>> On 13/02/2026 21:17, Richmond wrote: >>>> David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-17 08:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Interconnection with POTS |
| Message-ID | <10n19m4$1je3i$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38953 |
On 16/02/2026 17:49, Richmond wrote: > Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> writes: > >> On 16/02/2026 16:57, Richmond wrote: >>> Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 13/02/2026 21:17, Richmond wrote: >>>>> David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> 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. 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., -- It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. Mark Twain
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-17 08:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Interconnection with POTS |
| Message-ID | <10n1ajs$1jva6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38960 |
On 17/02/2026 08:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 16/02/2026 17:49, Richmond wrote: >> Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> writes: >> >>> On 16/02/2026 16:57, Richmond wrote: >>>> Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 13/02/2026 21:17, Richmond wrote: >>>>>> David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> 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? Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-17 10:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Interconnection with POTS |
| Message-ID | <82342zy96w.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #38961 |
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes: > On 17/02/2026 08:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 16/02/2026 17:49, Richmond wrote: >>> Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 16/02/2026 16:57, Richmond wrote: >>>>> Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 13/02/2026 21:17, Richmond wrote: >>>>>>> David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-17 10:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Interconnection with POTS |
| Message-ID | <82y0krwufy.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #38963 |
And if they are not crap, why have they become dependent on wifi calling?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 6 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | uk.telecom
csiph-web