Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #146096 > unrolled thread
| Started by | micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-01-03 08:21 -0500 |
| Last post | 2025-01-04 02:51 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 89 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
texst to a landline micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-01-03 08:21 -0500
Re: texst to a landline Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-03 13:38 +0000
Re: texst to a landline micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-01-03 09:31 -0500
Re: texst to a landline Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-03 18:23 +0000
Re: texst to a landline micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2025-04-02 18:24 -0400
Re: texst to a landline Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-04-03 09:49 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-03 15:48 -0500
Re: texst to a landline Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-03 20:52 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-03 22:24 +0100
Re: texst to a landline Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2025-01-04 10:21 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-04 12:55 +0000
Re: texst to a landline "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-04 15:06 +0100
Re: texst to a landline Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-04 17:33 +0100
Re: texst to a landline Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-05 00:48 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-01-05 22:56 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-04 19:41 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-04 20:01 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-04 20:43 +0000
Re: texst to a landline "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-04 22:56 +0100
Re: texst to a landline Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-05 11:00 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-03 20:06 -0500
Re: texst to a landline "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-04 02:47 +0100
Re: texst to a landline Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-04 09:42 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-04 08:20 -0500
Re: texst to a landline Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-04 13:39 +0000
Re: texst to a landline "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-04 15:12 +0100
Re: texst to a landline Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-04 11:24 -0500
Re: texst to a landline Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-01-04 15:22 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-04 11:32 -0500
Re: texst to a landline Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-01-05 17:08 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-05 18:54 +0000
Re: texst to a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-01-05 12:25 -0800
Re: texst to a landline Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-05 15:32 -0500
Re: texst to a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-01-05 13:42 -0800
Re: texst to a landline Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2025-01-05 22:35 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-03 22:17 +0100
Re: texst to a landline "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-03 22:37 +0100
Re: texst to a landline Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-04 09:31 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-04 12:19 +0100
Re: texst to a landline Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-04 12:46 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-03 22:34 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-03 20:07 -0500
Re: texst to a landline "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-04 02:48 +0100
Re: texst to a landline Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-04 09:08 +0100
Re: texst to a landline Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-04 08:37 -0500
Re: texst to a landline Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-04 17:36 +0100
Re: texst to a landline Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-04 09:07 +0100
Re: texst to a landline "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-04 12:47 +0100
Re: texst to a landline Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-04 08:52 -0500
Re: texst to a landline Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-04 20:19 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-05 00:39 +0000
Re: texst to a landline "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-05 03:50 +0100
Re: texst to a landline Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-05 13:00 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-04 08:35 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-04 08:25 -0500
Re: texst to a landline Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-04 14:01 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-04 11:38 -0500
Re: texst to a landline "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-04 23:02 +0100
Re: texst to a landline Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-04 17:42 +0100
Re: texst to a landline Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-04 17:40 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-05 10:28 +0100
Re: texst to a landline Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-04 20:24 +0000
Re: texst to a landline AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2025-01-04 09:40 -0700
Re: texst to a landline Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-04 18:32 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-04 15:47 -0500
Re: texst to a landline Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-05 00:19 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2025-01-05 09:12 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-05 10:31 +0100
Re: texst to a landline Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2025-01-04 10:25 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-05 00:14 +0000
Re: texst to a landline "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-05 03:54 +0100
Re: texst to a landline Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-05 23:34 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-06 08:23 +0000
Re: texst to a landline "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-06 14:35 +0100
Re: texst to a landline Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-06 13:43 +0000
Re: texst to a landline "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-06 15:10 +0100
Re: texst to a landline Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-06 16:22 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-06 10:55 -0500
Re: texst to a landline Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-04 20:11 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-01-03 19:02 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2025-01-03 19:17 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-03 15:26 +0100
Re: texst to a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2025-01-05 12:05 -0800
Re: texst to a landline Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-03 15:38 -0500
Re: texst to a landline "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-03 22:41 +0100
Re: texst to a landline Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-01-03 22:37 +0000
Re: texst to a landline Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2025-01-04 09:10 +0100
Re: texst to a landline Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-01-03 20:11 -0500
Re: texst to a landline "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-04 02:51 +0100
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
| From | Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 20:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vla1h3$5a06$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146126 |
On 1/3/2025 3:52 PM, Andy Burns wrote: > Newyana2 wrote: > >> micky wrote: >> >>> Trying to find how to allow texts to a Verizion FIOS line has been >>> suprisingly unsuccessful. >> >> There's no such thing. Think it through. Where could the text display >> even if it did come through? > > Aren't DECT phone common over there? Many of them have SMS capability > when on a PSTN/POTS line. > I don't know what DECT or POTS mean. We have landlines that can be direct phone wires or VOIP. Either way, the phones are the same. There's room for maybe 12 letter in the Caller ID display and no facility to receive a text. They can receive an audio message, but then, who's going to go to the trouble to sned an audio message when most of the people they know have texting?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-04 02:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lhgm4lxss3.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #146147 |
On 2025-01-04 02:06, Newyana2 wrote: > On 1/3/2025 3:52 PM, Andy Burns wrote: >> Newyana2 wrote: >> >>> micky wrote: >>> >>>> Trying to find how to allow texts to a Verizion FIOS line has been >>>> suprisingly unsuccessful. >>> >>> There's no such thing. Think it through. Where could the text display >>> even if it did come through? >> >> Aren't DECT phone common over there? Many of them have SMS capability >> when on a PSTN/POTS line. >> > > I don't know what DECT or POTS mean. Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) is a cordless telephony standard maintained by ETSI. It originated in Europe, where it is the common standard, replacing earlier standards, such as CT1 and CT2. Since the DECT-2020 standard onwards, it also includes IoT communication. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DECT Plain Old Telephone Service (POTS), or Plain Ordinary Telephone System[1], is a retronym for voice-grade telephone service that employs analog signal transmission over copper loops. The term POTS originally stood for Post Office Telephone Service, as early telephone lines in many regions were operated directly by local Post Offices. For instance, in New Zealand, the telephone system remained under Post Office control until the 1980s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_old_telephone_service The public switched telephone network (PSTN) is the aggregate of the world's telephone networks that are operated by national, regional, or local telephony operators. It provides infrastructure and services for public telephony. The PSTN consists of telephone lines, fiber-optic cables, microwave transmission links, cellular networks, communications satellites, and undersea telephone cables interconnected by switching centers, such as central offices, network tandems, and international gateways, which allow telephone users to communicate with each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_switched_telephone_network -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-04 09:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ltse40Fi6rfU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #146147 |
Newyana2 wrote: > Andy Burns wrote: > >> Aren't DECT phone common over there? Many of them have SMS capability >> when on a PSTN/POTS line. > > I don't know what DECT I suspected they hadn't really caught-on over there, they're digital cordless (mostly home) phones, so they tend to have a lot of mobile-like features, such as a graphical display. Though mostly people associate texting only with mobiles. > or POTS mean. I specifically said POTS because I believed you used that term (plain old telephone service) rather than PSTN, oh well. > We have landlines > that can be direct phone wires or VOIP. Either way, the > phones are the same. Same here. > There's room for maybe 12 letter in > the Caller ID display and no facility to receive a text. > They can receive an audio message, but then, who's going > to go to the trouble to sned an audio message when most of > the people they know have texting?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-04 08:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vlbci5$fo4o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146167 |
On 1/4/2025 4:42 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
>> I don't know what DECT
>
> I suspected they hadn't really caught-on over there, they're digital
> cordless (mostly home) phones, so they tend to have a lot of mobile-like
> features, such as a graphical display. Though mostly people associate
> texting only with mobiles.
>
Yes, that's unfamiliar. I didn't know there was such a thing.
In Carlos's description he says it serves the IoT. Here that's only
possible via ethernet or wifi. So I guess I'm glad my dryer can't
jump online through my phone line.
Though I'm still not completely clear about this. My landline
has cordless extensions and a limited graphical display. It has
caller ID and I can choose to program in numbers to be blocked.
However, it does not have wireless connection to any network.
It's still a landline -- what you apparently call POTS. The only
change is updated hardware.
DECT sounds like it's truly wireless, connecting via towers
like cellphones? Or via wifi as wireless VOIP? Or maybe via
telephone pole receivers that you can see out the windy? :)
>> or POTS mean.
>
> I specifically said POTS because I believed you used that term (plain
> old telephone service) rather than PSTN, oh well.
>
Probably true, but this sounds like engineer or historian talk.
We used to talk about telephones. Now we talk about landlines
or cellular. No one has ever needed technical acronyms. But I
was unaware that there were fundamentally different systems
operating elsewhere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-04 13:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ltss04FklgtU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #146185 |
Newyana2 wrote: > In Carlos's description he says it serves the IoT. Here that's only > possible via ethernet or wifi. So I guess I'm glad my dryer can't > jump online through my phone line. I think the IoT aspect is new, mine doesn't have it, the DECT base-station does have bluetooth to link to a mobile phone (which was rubbish quality last time I tried).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-04 15:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <27sn4lxduj.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #146185 |
On 2025-01-04 14:20, Newyana2 wrote: > On 1/4/2025 4:42 AM, Andy Burns wrote: > >>> I don't know what DECT >> >> I suspected they hadn't really caught-on over there, they're digital >> cordless (mostly home) phones, so they tend to have a lot of mobile- >> like features, such as a graphical display. Though mostly people >> associate texting only with mobiles. >> > > Yes, that's unfamiliar. I didn't know there was such a thing. > In Carlos's description he says it serves the IoT. Here that's only > possible via ethernet or wifi. So I guess I'm glad my dryer can't > jump online through my phone line. > > Though I'm still not completely clear about this. My landline > has cordless extensions and a limited graphical display. It has > caller ID and I can choose to program in numbers to be blocked. > However, it does not have wireless connection to any network. > It's still a landline -- what you apparently call POTS. The only > change is updated hardware. > > DECT sounds like it's truly wireless, connecting via towers > like cellphones? Or via wifi as wireless VOIP? Or maybe via > telephone pole receivers that you can see out the windy? :) No. DECT phones connect by radio to a base at your home, which is connected to the copper pair. You can see a photo of the base station on the wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DECT -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-04 11:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vlbna8$hivf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146192 |
On 1/4/2025 9:12 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> No. DECT phones connect by radio to a base at your home, which is
> connected to the copper pair.
>
> You can see a photo of the base station on the wikipedia article.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DECT
>
Ah. We have almost that. Multiple phones talk to each other.
But one must be wired directly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-04 15:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <zSw*psL3z@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #146185 |
Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote: > On 1/4/2025 4:42 AM, Andy Burns wrote: > > >> I don't know what DECT > > > > I suspected they hadn't really caught-on over there, they're digital > > cordless (mostly home) phones, so they tend to have a lot of mobile-like > > features, such as a graphical display. Though mostly people associate > > texting only with mobiles. > > > > Yes, that's unfamiliar. I didn't know there was such a thing. > In Carlos's description he says it serves the IoT. Here that's only > possible via ethernet or wifi. So I guess I'm glad my dryer can't > jump online through my phone line. > > Though I'm still not completely clear about this. My landline > has cordless extensions and a limited graphical display. It has > caller ID and I can choose to program in numbers to be blocked. > However, it does not have wireless connection to any network. > It's still a landline -- what you apparently call POTS. The only > change is updated hardware. I think you might be using DECT without realising it. eg from a search on Amazon.com for 'cordless phone', #4 is an AT&T branded DECT base and handset: https://www.amazon.com/AT-BL102-2-2-Handset-Answering-Unsurpassed/dp/B086QB7WZ1 and similar are at #6, #9, #11, #12. Most of the others are Panasonic or V-Tech, many of which have DECT in the title too. What model of cordless landline phone do you have? Theo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-04 11:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vlbnqa$hmk2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146197 |
On 1/4/2025 10:22 AM, Theo wrote:
> I think you might be using DECT without realising it. eg from a search on
> Amazon.com for 'cordless phone', #4 is an AT&T branded DECT base and handset:
>
> https://www.amazon.com/AT-BL102-2-2-Handset-Answering-Unsurpassed/dp/B086QB7WZ1
>
> and similar are at #6, #9, #11, #12. Most of the others are Panasonic or
> V-Tech, many of which have DECT in the title too.
>
> What model of cordless landline phone do you have?
>
Panasonic. But note that the phone in the picture has an
antenna. Mine is wired directly to the phone line, which
goes to the VOIP device but used to go to a modem and
before that wen't to public telephone lines. The extensions
are wireless, but not the base station/answering machine.
I've never seen a fully wireless landline. But maybe it's not
really different. Using radio waves to get to the phone line is
not fundamentally changing the technology. The phone in the
picture has the same basic display and functions. The only
difference seems to be that it doesn't need to be direct-wired.
If DECT eventually goes to the landline
then it would seem that the lack of landline texting in the
US may be more due to simple lack of support rather than
technical issues. Not that I mind. I have no interest in
receiving 100 characters of misspelled trivia, scrolling
across my tiny phone screen like news headlines. As it
stands, I'm glad that people can't text me.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 17:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <BSw*M8Q3z@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #146200 |
Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote: > On 1/4/2025 10:22 AM, Theo wrote: > > > I think you might be using DECT without realising it. eg from a search on > > Amazon.com for 'cordless phone', #4 is an AT&T branded DECT base and handset: > > > > https://www.amazon.com/AT-BL102-2-2-Handset-Answering-Unsurpassed/dp/B086QB7WZ1 > > > > and similar are at #6, #9, #11, #12. Most of the others are Panasonic or > > V-Tech, many of which have DECT in the title too. > > > > What model of cordless landline phone do you have? > > > > Panasonic. But note that the phone in the picture has an > antenna. Mine is wired directly to the phone line, which > goes to the VOIP device but used to go to a modem and > before that wen't to public telephone lines. The extensions > are wireless, but not the base station/answering machine. > > I've never seen a fully wireless landline. But maybe it's not > really different. Using radio waves to get to the phone line is > not fundamentally changing the technology. The phone in the > picture has the same basic display and functions. The only > difference seems to be that it doesn't need to be direct-wired. > DECT handsets are cordless, as the name suggests. They talk via radio to the base station, hence the antenna. The base is corded, either to the classic copper phone line or to a VOIP converter box (maybe in the ISP's router). It's also possible to get bases which do VOIP directly, ie plug into an ethernet network - they're doing DECT between the handset and the base and converting it directly to VOIP rather than going via a copper phone line. Some routers also include this DECT-VOIP gateway, ie you pair your DECT handset with the router and then the outbound phone call is all VOIP. DECT range can be up to 400m from a single base, so is useful for people with a large property without needing to install boosters everywhere. > If DECT eventually goes to the landline > then it would seem that the lack of landline texting in the > US may be more due to simple lack of support rather than > technical issues. Not that I mind. I have no interest in > receiving 100 characters of misspelled trivia, scrolling > across my tiny phone screen like news headlines. As it > stands, I'm glad that people can't text me. My Gigaset handset with VOIP base will actually scroll the news headlines and weather on its tiny screen, fetched from some Gigaset server. It's not the most useful feature :-) Landline SMS can be useful when you don't have mobile signal locally but need to receive verification SMS from various companies. Although the takeup of wifi calling on mobiles has made that less relevant. Theo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 18:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vleo1u.qf0.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #146271 |
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: [...] > DECT handsets are cordless, as the name suggests. They talk via radio to > the base station, hence the antenna. The base is corded, either to the > classic copper phone line or to a VOIP converter box (maybe in the ISP's > router). Just a minor, but important, comment: (Some/most/all?) DECT handsets and base stations use *internal* antennas. So if you don't see an antenna, that doesn't mean it can't be a DECT device, but also not that it is a DECT device, because it *could* - but is not likely to - use other cordless technology. [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 12:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vleps0$16nqr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146281 |
I've never been able to receive text messages on my Ooma VOIP number,
but I thought it might be interesting to try to send one. My question:
How does one do that? Email to the phone number? Nope. "Messages"
tried but failed.
Anything?
--
Cheers, Bev
"Not everyone can be above average so why
shouldn't we be the ones to suck?"
--Anonymous School Board Member
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 15:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vleq87$16qea$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146287 |
On 1/5/2025 3:25 PM, The Real Bev wrote: > I've never been able to receive text messages on my Ooma VOIP number, > but I thought it might be interesting to try to send one. My question: > How does one do that? Email to the phone number? Nope. "Messages" > tried but failed. > > Anything? > > You can. These should be up to date: AT&T: number@txt.att.net Qwest: number@qwestmp.com T-Mobile: number@tmomail.net Verizon: number@vtext.com Sprint: number@messaging.sprintpcs.com or number@pm.sprint.com Virgin Mobile: number@vmobl.com Nextel: number@messaging.nextel.com Alltel: number@message.alltel.com Metro PCS: number@mymetropcs.com Powertel: number@ptel.com Boost Mobile: number@myboostmobile.com Suncom: number@tms.suncom.com Tracfone: number@mmst5.tracfone.com U.S. Cellular: number@email.uscc.net You just send an email to their phone number. The trick is that you need to know their provider. The other catch is that they'll have to send an email to respond to you. Confusing. Probably most people wouldn't know how to handle it. So it's like 1234567890@vtext.com Hopefully the recipient knows it's a joke and knows that you can't receive a text in return. I don't know how they see the sender identified.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 13:42 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <vleubl$17im9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146288 |
On 1/5/25 12:32 PM, Newyana2 wrote:
> On 1/5/2025 3:25 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> I've never been able to receive text messages on my Ooma VOIP number,
>> but I thought it might be interesting to try to send one. My question:
>> How does one do that? Email to the phone number? Nope. "Messages"
>> tried but failed.
>>
>> Anything?
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I wanted to try sending a text message from my
cell TO my Ooma VOIP number. I'll try emailing ###@ooma.com and see
what happens.
> You can. These should be up to date:
Thanks, this is useful information.
> AT&T: number@txt.att.net
> Qwest: number@qwestmp.com
> T-Mobile: number@tmomail.net
> Verizon: number@vtext.com
> Sprint: number@messaging.sprintpcs.com or number@pm.sprint.com
> Virgin Mobile: number@vmobl.com
> Nextel: number@messaging.nextel.com
> Alltel: number@message.alltel.com
> Metro PCS: number@mymetropcs.com
> Powertel: number@ptel.com
> Boost Mobile: number@myboostmobile.com
> Suncom: number@tms.suncom.com
> Tracfone: number@mmst5.tracfone.com
> U.S. Cellular: number@email.uscc.net
>
> You just send an email to their phone number. The trick is
> that you need to know their provider. The other catch is that
> they'll have to send an email to respond to you. Confusing.
> Probably most people wouldn't know how to handle it.
>
> So it's like 1234567890@vtext.com Hopefully the recipient
> knows it's a joke and knows that you can't receive a text
> in return. I don't know how they see the sender identified.
I've emailed to my grandspawn ###@att.net with my computer. It shows
'sent from' my email address, and she's replied to me.
--
Cheers, Bev
666øF -- the oven temperature for roast beast.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 22:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <BSw*tjS3z@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #146299 |
The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1/5/25 12:32 PM, Newyana2 wrote: > > On 1/5/2025 3:25 PM, The Real Bev wrote: > >> I've never been able to receive text messages on my Ooma VOIP number, > >> but I thought it might be interesting to try to send one. My question: > >> How does one do that? Email to the phone number? Nope. "Messages" > >> tried but failed. > >> > >> Anything? > > Sorry, I wasn't clear. I wanted to try sending a text message from my > cell TO my Ooma VOIP number. I'll try emailing ###@ooma.com and see > what happens. Can't you just use your cell to SMS your Ooma number +1 (xxx) xxx-xxxx like any other cellphone number? > > You can. These should be up to date: > > Thanks, this is useful information. To send from your Ooma number, it's possible they also provide a web page or mobile app that allows sending SMS with their system. Although maybe you need to be on their business package, I don't know. Theo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 22:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vl9k61$25ste$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #146125 |
On 03.01.25 21:48, Newyana2 wrote: > There's no such thing. Think it through. Where could the text display > even if it did come through? I would suggest to check the screen. -- "Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 22:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8u1m4lxlon.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #146125 |
On 2025-01-03 21:48, Newyana2 wrote:
> On 1/3/2025 9:31 AM, micky wrote:
>
>> Trying to find how to allow texts to a Verizion FIOS line has been
>> suprisingly unsuccessful.
>>
>
> There's no such thing. Think it through. Where could the text display
> even if it did come through? If the sender converts it to voice then
> that's a recorded audio message, not a text. You can't convert it
> to voice on your end because you can't receive it in the first place.
Yes, there is such a thing.
The telephone exchange converts the text to machine voice, and then
phones you.
This service depends on the company and the country, and possibly on
contracting the service. It is not universal.
I tried it long ago here (Spain) and quickly disabled it.
I think messages were delivered only at a more or less
fixed hour.
Then, if the landline is actually a true VoIp intelligent phone, it may
also receive texts. There is a display. I don't know if this is done,
but I think it is feasible.
A true VoIp phone is connected to an ethernet cable or to a WiFi, not to
a copper pair. It is a small computer, not a traditional landline dumb
phone.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-04 09:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ltsdg8Fi6rfU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #146133 |
Carlos E.R. wrote: > The telephone exchange converts the text to machine voice, and then > phones you. > > This service depends on the company and the country, and possibly on > contracting the service. It is not universal. > > I tried it long ago here (Spain) and quickly disabled it. > I think messages were delivered only at a more or less > fixed hour. Here, it will phone you any time of day with the voice messages, there is an IVR number you can call to set a curfew for voice delivery, or just turn it off altogether.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-04 12:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vlb5gj$26kpr$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #146166 |
On 04.01.25 10:31, Andy Burns wrote: > Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> The telephone exchange converts the text to machine voice, and then >> phones you. >> >> This service depends on the company and the country, and possibly on >> contracting the service. It is not universal. >> >> I tried it long ago here (Spain) and quickly disabled it. >> I think messages were delivered only at a more or less >> fixed hour. > > Here, it will phone you any time of day with the voice messages, there > is an IVR number you can call to set a curfew for voice delivery, or > just turn it off altogether. In the IP world such things are done in the personal webaccount. -- "Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-04 12:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ltsoteFk8ulU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #146174 |
Jörg Lorenz wrote: > Andy Burns wrote: > >> Here, it will phone you any time of day with the voice messages, there >> is an IVR number you can call to set a curfew for voice delivery, or >> just turn it off altogether. > > In the IP world such things are done in the personal webaccount. Here, the SMS doesn't seem to make it as far as my VoIP provider, it seems to get intercepted by BT/Openreach and delivered by voice to my VoIP provider. I haven't had any online account with BT for about 2 decades.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web