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 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-12 18:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <82ecmpvn0i.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #38892 |
Virgin Media charges 24p per minute for calls to landlines outside its bundles. That's the same price as a Kilowatt of electricity! You can have an electric heater on for half an hour, or make a one minute phone call!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-13 10:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10mmss6$27ag8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38892 |
On 12/02/2026 14:13, Richmond 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. > Yawn. You shoud see the mess the state run telecoms is in e.g. Germany or Spain > 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 see that your spelling is from the Tony Blair school of 'if its sounds about right, it is right' -- Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people. But Marxism is the crack cocaine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-13 12:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10mn6f2$260no$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38900 |
On 13/02/2026 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 12/02/2026 14:13, Richmond 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? Not sure about VM but certainly BT does this. I doubt any digital voice system is anything other than SIP under the covers with the login details hidden so you can't connect other hardware.. 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. You can charge a connection fee on a SIP account. It has IMHO one purpose, and that is to maximise profits. It does this by minimising support and service delivery costs. So the hardware they provide is "Plug and Play", you don't need to put user names or passwords in. Its all been tested together so it all works. As so many "just want it to work" they can, and do, sell this service at a premium, and many are happy to pay, as the price stays the same. >> >> 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. >> I don't believe its "destroyed", in fact I feel its in a much better place than when it was run by the GPO, there were no socketed phones, only GPO approved and owned devices, and long distance calls were at a premium. If you are prepared to shop around there are many options. > Yawn. > You shoud see the mess the state run telecoms is in e.g. Germany or Spain > >> 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 see that your spelling is from the Tony Blair school of 'if its sounds > about right, it is right' > As a child of the 1950's who suffered from the progressive education system, that is the way I was taught... Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-13 13:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <82qzqossgb.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #38901 |
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes: > On 13/02/2026 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 12/02/2026 14:13, Richmond 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? > > Not sure about VM but certainly BT does this. I doubt any digital > voice system is anything other than SIP under the covers with the > login details hidden so you can't connect other hardware.. > > 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. > > You can charge a connection fee on a SIP account. It has IMHO one > purpose, and that is to maximise profits. > > It does this by minimising support and service delivery costs. So the > hardware they provide is "Plug and Play", you don't need to put user > names or passwords in. Its all been tested together so it all works. > > As so many "just want it to work" they can, and do, sell this service > at a premium, and many are happy to pay, as the price stays the same. > > >>> >>> 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. >>> > > I don't believe its "destroyed", in fact I feel its in a much better > place than when it was run by the GPO, there were no socketed phones, > only GPO approved and owned devices, and long distance calls were at a > premium. > > If you are prepared to shop around there are many options. > What we are moving toward is not a telephone network, it is the internet. The telephone network has been dissolved into just another internet service. With genuine competition people will stop paying for calls and use some free software. But genuine competition isn't Google Meet or Whatsapp, where you have to determine which proprietary software the recipient is using before calling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-13 14:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <CKb*+78yA@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #38902 |
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: > David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes: > > >> On 12/02/2026 14:13, Richmond wrote: > > > >>> 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. > >>> > > > > I don't believe its "destroyed", in fact I feel its in a much better > > place than when it was run by the GPO, there were no socketed phones, > > only GPO approved and owned devices, and long distance calls were at a > > premium. Tech in the 80s (microprocessors) was much advanced from the 70s (mechanical switching), and tech today is much advanced from the 80s. It's not really a fair comparison because advancing tech has expanded network capacity and made the cost of voice calls much, much cheaper (even if the price has not followed suit). > What we are moving toward is not a telephone network, it is the > internet. The telephone network has been dissolved into just another > internet service. Basically you don't have to worry about long distance call routing any more, you just get the internet to do it for you. The original IETF pioneers decided it was easier to build out the network that it was to work out how to bill for it, and that has more or less held. > With genuine competition people will stop paying for calls and use some > free software. But genuine competition isn't Google Meet or Whatsapp, > where you have to determine which proprietary software the recipient is > using before calling. Long distance routing might be free, but running servers, endpoints and support are not free. 'Phone calls' have a usage-based billing model (eg wholesale call termination is about 0.1p/min for UK landlines and 0.5-1p/min for mobiles) which covers the recipient network's costs, with the remainder of the bill going to cover the costs of the initiating network. Google Meet and Whatsapp are cross-subsidised from business subscriptions or advertisting, and Facetime is cross-subsidised from hardware sales - and they are notable for offering minimal support. They're free at the point of use because they're a power play in keeping you in the Google/Meta/Apple ecosystem so they can harvest your data or make it undesirable to buy services/hardware from another vendor. 'Phone calls' may have a low cost, but it seems the market is bifurcating into domestic telecoms, where the cost of running the network (notably support) is spread across fewer and fewer customers, and business telecoms which is about high volumes and the customer doing more of their own support. If you don't want to be gouged it's up to you to learn how to make the leap to the latter. Theo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-13 15:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <82fr74skpa.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #38903 |
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >> David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes: >> >> >> On 12/02/2026 14:13, Richmond wrote: >> > >> >>> 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. >> >>> >> > >> > I don't believe its "destroyed", in fact I feel its in a much >> > better place than when it was run by the GPO, there were no >> > socketed phones, only GPO approved and owned devices, and long >> > distance calls were at a premium. > > Tech in the 80s (microprocessors) was much advanced from the 70s > (mechanical switching), and tech today is much advanced from the 80s. > It's not really a fair comparison because advancing tech has expanded > network capacity and made the cost of voice calls much, much cheaper > (even if the price has not followed suit). > >> What we are moving toward is not a telephone network, it is the >> internet. The telephone network has been dissolved into just another >> internet service. > > Basically you don't have to worry about long distance call routing any > more, you just get the internet to do it for you. The original IETF > pioneers decided it was easier to build out the network that it was to > work out how to bill for it, and that has more or less held. > >> With genuine competition people will stop paying for calls and use >> some free software. But genuine competition isn't Google Meet or >> Whatsapp, where you have to determine which proprietary software the >> recipient is using before calling. > > Long distance routing might be free, but running servers, endpoints > and support are not free. 'Phone calls' have a usage-based billing > model (eg wholesale call termination is about 0.1p/min for UK > landlines and 0.5-1p/min for mobiles) which covers the recipient > network's costs, with the remainder of the bill going to cover the > costs of the initiating network. > > Google Meet and Whatsapp are cross-subsidised from business > subscriptions or advertisting, and Facetime is cross-subsidised from > hardware sales - and they are notable for offering minimal support. > They're free at the point of use because they're a power play in > keeping you in the Google/Meta/Apple ecosystem so they can harvest > your data or make it undesirable to buy services/hardware from another > vendor. > > 'Phone calls' may have a low cost, but it seems the market is > bifurcating into domestic telecoms, where the cost of running the > network (notably support) is spread across fewer and fewer customers, > and business telecoms which is about high volumes and the customer > doing more of their own support. If you don't want to be gouged it's > up to you to learn how to make the leap to the latter. > > Theo I pay for my infrastructure with my broadband subscription. Other people pay for theirs, that's how the internet works. I don't have to pay a connection fee to connect to a website. I don't pay per minute to download. Those connection fees you quote above are justified by ADSL and Mobile perhaps, but not by VOIP to VOIP. Here, listen to free UDP packets: https://onlineradiobox.com/us/wkct/?cs=us.977todayshits (unfortunate contatenation of todays and hits) Currently I phone people free if they are on Signal, or Google Meet, or Zoom, or Teams, and I pay about 1.5ppm if they don't know what they are on or how it works, and I pay 3ppm for mobile. I can't do any better than that as things stand. No one is going to use Matrix or whatever, they won't understand it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-14 10:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10mphht$32l7q$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38902 |
On 13/02/2026 13:07, Richmond wrote: > What we are moving toward is not a telephone network, it is the > internet. The telephone network has been dissolved into just another > internet service. > +1 > With genuine competition people will stop paying for calls and use some > free software. But genuine competition isn't Google Meet or Whatsapp, > where you have to determine which proprietary software the recipient is > using before calling. Until it becomes ubiquitous. Nearly everybody I know uses whatsapp. -- It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house for the voice of the kingdom. Jonathan Swift
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-14 11:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9e166m-fccs2.ln1@q957.zbmc.eu> |
| In reply to | #38912 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 13/02/2026 13:07, Richmond wrote: > > > With genuine competition people will stop paying for calls and use some > > free software. But genuine competition isn't Google Meet or Whatsapp, > > where you have to determine which proprietary software the recipient is > > using before calling. > > Until it becomes ubiquitous. > > Nearly everybody I know uses whatsapp. > Well I'm one of the exceptions then (you know me on here!). A few years ago Skype was everywhere and it has now disappeared so the same might happen to WhatsApp. -- Chris Green ·
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-14 13:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10mpt2k$319vh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38914 |
On 14/02/2026 11:04, Chris Green wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On 13/02/2026 13:07, Richmond wrote: >> >>> With genuine competition people will stop paying for calls and use some >>> free software. But genuine competition isn't Google Meet or Whatsapp, >>> where you have to determine which proprietary software the recipient is >>> using before calling. >> >> Until it becomes ubiquitous. >> >> Nearly everybody I know uses whatsapp. >> > Well I'm one of the exceptions then (you know me on here!). > > A few years ago Skype was everywhere and it has now disappeared so the > same might happen to WhatsApp. > I keep thinking WhatsApp will go. It can't make much money, if any, and every time Meta try and merge it with Facebook Messenger they get stopped. I think WhatsApp is popular though because in many countries, e.g. Spain, text messages seem to be chargeable on most contracts and all you need to set it up is a mobile number. Also if you have free WiFi or internet it free to send to any country.... Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-14 16:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10mq688$39fpc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38915 |
On 14/02/2026 13:24, David Wade wrote: > > I think WhatsApp is popular though because in many countries, e.g. > Spain, text messages seem to be chargeable on most contracts and all you > need to set it up is a mobile number. WhatsApp is popular worldwide (except North America ironically), because it's a platform agnostic method to sent texts, photos, videos, and audio files 'free of charge' to anyone else on the planet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-14 16:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <82o6lrff3j.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #38918 |
Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> writes: > On 14/02/2026 13:24, David Wade wrote: > >> I think WhatsApp is popular though because in many countries, >> e.g. Spain, text messages seem to be chargeable on most contracts and >> all you need to set it up is a mobile number. > > WhatsApp is popular worldwide (except North America ironically), > because it's a platform agnostic method to sent texts, photos, videos, > and audio files 'free of charge' to anyone else on the planet. And the price they pay for this freedom is to have their data stolen by a criminal organisation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-14 19:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10mqhf6$3dign$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38919 |
On 14/02/2026 16:46, Richmond wrote:
> Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> writes:
>
>> On 14/02/2026 13:24, David Wade wrote:
>>
>>> I think WhatsApp is popular though because in many countries,
>>> e.g. Spain, text messages seem to be chargeable on most contracts and
>>> all you need to set it up is a mobile number.
>>
>> WhatsApp is popular worldwide (except North America ironically),
>> because it's a platform agnostic method to sent texts, photos, videos,
>> and audio files 'free of charge' to anyone else on the planet.
>
> And the price they pay for this freedom is to have their data stolen by
> a criminal organisation.
They are welcome to my whatsapp data. It's as boring as fuck....
--
"Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have
forgotten your aim."
George Santayana
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-14 22:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10mqrok$37dkf$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38918 |
On 2026/2/14 16:1:12, Mark Carver wrote: > On 14/02/2026 13:24, David Wade wrote: > >> >> I think WhatsApp is popular though because in many countries, e.g. >> Spain, text messages seem to be chargeable on most contracts and all you >> need to set it up is a mobile number. > > WhatsApp is popular worldwide (except North America ironically), because > it's a platform agnostic method to sent texts, photos, videos, and audio > files 'free of charge' to anyone else on the planet. "Anyone else on the planet" who (a) has it [and the equipment - smartphone or computer - to use it] (b) whose contact information you know. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf live your dash. ... On your tombstone, there's the date you're born and the date you die - and in between there's a dash. - a friend quoted by Dustin Hoffman in Radio Times, 5-11 January 2013
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-14 22:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10mqtoe$3gv4j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38925 |
On 14/02/2026 22:08, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > On 2026/2/14 16:1:12, Mark Carver wrote: >> On 14/02/2026 13:24, David Wade wrote: >> >>> >>> I think WhatsApp is popular though because in many countries, e.g. >>> Spain, text messages seem to be chargeable on most contracts and all you >>> need to set it up is a mobile number. >> >> WhatsApp is popular worldwide (except North America ironically), because >> it's a platform agnostic method to sent texts, photos, videos, and audio >> files 'free of charge' to anyone else on the planet. > > "Anyone else on the planet" who (a) has it [and the equipment - > smartphone or computer - to use it] (b) whose contact information you know. > But over 90% of the uk population now have smartphones compared to 43% having land lines. Their contact information is just their mobile number. If they don't have WhatsApp it says do you want to invite them. So in almost every case for a UK user its as easy to get in touch with someone via WhatsApp as it is to phone or text them. Unlike SMS messages its easy to have community groups, so I am, somewhat reluctantly, in them for several local community groups, so guide dog fund raisers, local campaign for real ale, U3A Spanish conversation plus a few others. I also use it to talk to the folks who look after my foreign holiday home. I can see when the messages have been read etc. You might not like it, but it really is a very popular comms tool... Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-14 15:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10mq4j9$37dkf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38914 |
On 2026/2/14 11:4:9, Chris Green wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On 13/02/2026 13:07, Richmond wrote: >> >>> With genuine competition people will stop paying for calls and use some >>> free software. But genuine competition isn't Google Meet or Whatsapp, >>> where you have to determine which proprietary software the recipient is >>> using before calling. >> >> Until it becomes ubiquitous. >> >> Nearly everybody I know uses whatsapp. >> > Well I'm one of the exceptions then (you know me on here!). Me too. Nor Instagram, TikTok, or (if I can help it) Facebook. > > A few years ago Skype was everywhere and it has now disappeared so the > same might happen to WhatsApp. > If you still had Skype when it ended, next time you turned it on, it turned itself into the replacement (Teams, I think). Skype had a system for connecting you to landlines (and I think mobiles) - you had to pay though. (Though I think it was cheap.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf If it's not on fire, it's a software problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Julian Macassey <julian@n6are.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-16 13:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn10p68er.1qu1s.julian@n6are.com> |
| In reply to | #38912 |
On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 10:07:57 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > Nearly everybody I know uses whatsapp. I don't.There are better and more secure alternatives. -- The NHS will last as long as there are folk left with faith to fight for it. - Aneurin Bevan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-16 14:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1008469362.792944532.068570.timdownieuk-yahoo.co.youkay@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #38941 |
Julian Macassey <julian@n6are.com> wrote: > On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 10:07:57 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> >> Nearly everybody I know uses whatsapp. > > I don't.There are better and more secure alternatives. > But not necessarily more popular. There’s no point using a more secure app to communicate with if nobody you know uses it. Tim -- Please don't feed the trolls
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-16 15:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <82jywcww29.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #38942 |
Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> writes: > Julian Macassey <julian@n6are.com> wrote: >>> >>> Nearly everybody I know uses whatsapp. >> >> I don't.There are better and more secure alternatives. >> > > But not necessarily more popular. There’s no point using a more > secure app to communicate with if nobody you know uses it. > There is no point in supporting criminal behaviour if you want to live in a civilised society. I use Signal to communicate with people who are on Signal, and email or telephone for everyone else.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-16 16:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <617680775.792950593.099906.timdownieuk-yahoo.co.youkay@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #38943 |
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: > Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> writes: > >> Julian Macassey <julian@n6are.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Nearly everybody I know uses whatsapp. >>> >>> I don't.There are better and more secure alternatives. >>> >> >> But not necessarily more popular. There’s no point using a more >> secure app to communicate with if nobody you know uses it. >> > > There is no point in supporting criminal behaviour if you want to live > in a civilised society. That’s a bit of a leap. There are many, many reasons for criminal behaviour but I’ll bet that use of WhatsApp is *way* down the list. > I use Signal to communicate with people who are on Signal, and email or > telephone for everyone else. If that works for you, fine. Not using WhatsApp would be a major inconvenience for me. Tim -- Please don't feed the trolls
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-02-16 16:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <82fr70wtm0.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #38945 |
Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> writes: > Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote: >> Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> writes: >> >>> Julian Macassey <julian@n6are.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Nearly everybody I know uses whatsapp. >>>> >>>> I don't.There are better and more secure alternatives. >>>> >>> >>> But not necessarily more popular. There’s no point using a more >>> secure app to communicate with if nobody you know uses it. >>> >> >> There is no point in supporting criminal behaviour if you want to live >> in a civilised society. > > That’s a bit of a leap. There are many, many reasons for criminal > behaviour but I’ll bet that use of WhatsApp is *way* down the list. > I am talking about the behaviour of Meta, violating: GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) DMA (Digital Markets Act) ePrivacy Directive DSA (Digital Services Act) https://localmess.github.io/ https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/protect-yourself-metas-latest-attack-privacy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | uk.telecom
csiph-web