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 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 10:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vldjb3$27rqg$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #146207 |
On 04.01.25 18:40, Andy Burns wrote: > Jörg Lorenz wrote: > >>> Andy Burns wrote: >> >>> Until recently DECT phones plug into basic phone lines. >> >> DECT has absolutely nothing to do with the backend of the telefon-system >> in a house. It is simply a radio standard. > Nevertheless, it is common for DECT phones to plug into analogue phone > lines. Exactly so. The DECT-Standard is much older than IP-telephony. It is just a radio standard. The handsets DECT-communicate with the base which itself can be part of an analogue or a digital system. -- "Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-04 20:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vlc8td.pa0.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #146206 |
Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> wrote: > On 04.01.25 15:01, Andy Burns wrote: > > Newyana2 wrote: > > > >> what Andy described does not exist in the US. > >> We have basic telephone lines, first installed by Al Bell. > >> And we now have cellphones > > > > Until recently DECT phones plug into basic phone lines. > > DECT has absolutely nothing to do with the backend of the telefon-system > in a house. It is simply a radio standard. Exactly! Like Bluetooth has nothing to do with wireless headphones! ... Oops! Whats' wrong with this picture!? [Another false absolute deleted.]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | AJL <noemail@none.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-04 09:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vlboac$hpg5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146186 |
On 1/4/2025 6:25 AM, Newyana2 wrote: > We [US] have basic telephone lines, first installed by Al Bell. And > we now have cellphones, which require transmission towers. About 1/3 > of the US still doesn't even have cell access. There's a 3rd wired option at my [US] house. My 5 year old Samsung Galaxy S10+ has WiFi Calling which uses my home wired cable system and switches automatically to cell when I leave. No need for a POTS system anymore which of course I got rid of...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-04 18:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vlburd$iv4b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146186 |
Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote: > On 1/4/2025 3:35 AM, Chris wrote: >> Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote: >>> On 1/3/2025 5:34 PM, Chris wrote: >>> >>>>> There's no such thing. >>>> >>>> There certainly is. >>> >>> I'm talking about the US. >> >> So what? Doesn't change the facts. >> > > Yes, it does. I also didn't know that the systems were > different, but what Andy described does not exist in the US. > We have basic telephone lines, first installed by Al Bell. So do we, but installed by the GPO many moons ago. However, BT Openreach are in the process of moving everyone to FTTC/FTTP and VOIP. > And we now have cellphones, which require transmission > towers. What is this new fangled thing you're talking about!? lol > About 1/3 of the US still doesn't even have cell > access. Do you mean geographically or by population? I suspect the former. > I'm not sure, but I think Micky is in the US. Is so then > he cannot receive texts over his landline He can only > receive audio. As I (and others) have pointed out the system mentioned is an audio call, not text. He (and you) could receive txt messages via your landlines *if* your telcos implemented something similar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-04 15:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vlc6mv$kbq0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146209 |
On 1/4/2025 1:32 PM, Chris wrote:
>> About 1/3 of the US still doesn't even have cell
>> access.
>
> Do you mean geographically or by population? I suspect the former.
>
Geographically, yes. There are large areas with sparse population
and the telcos are not required to reach them.
>> I'm not sure, but I think Micky is in the US. Is so then
>> he cannot receive texts over his landline He can only
>> receive audio.
>
> As I (and others) have pointed out the system mentioned is an audio call,
> not text. He (and you) could receive txt messages via your landlines *if*
> your telcos implemented something similar.
>
Yes, but as far as I know there's no such option. Though
it could be handy for situations where companies insist on
a 2FA code. Many are happy to send it via email, but at
one point I was considering opening an investment account
and I couldn't sign up without a cellphone. They won't send
codes via audio. I suspect that they just want the cellphone
number and to get people using apps, so that they can track
their customers and perhaps sell personal data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 00:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vlcj76$mhfl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146221 |
Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote: > On 1/4/2025 1:32 PM, Chris wrote: > >>> About 1/3 of the US still doesn't even have cell >>> access. >> >> Do you mean geographically or by population? I suspect the former. >> > Geographically, yes. There are large areas with sparse population > and the telcos are not required to reach them. > >>> I'm not sure, but I think Micky is in the US. Is so then >>> he cannot receive texts over his landline He can only >>> receive audio. >> >> As I (and others) have pointed out the system mentioned is an audio call, >> not text. He (and you) could receive txt messages via your landlines *if* >> your telcos implemented something similar. >> > > Yes, but as far as I know there's no such option. Though > it could be handy for situations where companies insist on > a 2FA code. Many are happy to send it via email, but at > one point I was considering opening an investment account > and I couldn't sign up without a cellphone. They won't send > codes via audio. I suspect that they just want the cellphone > number and to get people using apps, so that they can track > their customers and perhaps sell personal data. It's more likely that they simply don't want to cater to people without cell phones. Not a worthwhile demographic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 09:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <k1vp4l-fuhj.ln1@q957.zbmc.eu> |
| In reply to | #146221 |
Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> wrote: > On 1/4/2025 1:32 PM, Chris wrote: > > >> About 1/3 of the US still doesn't even have cell > >> access. > > > > Do you mean geographically or by population? I suspect the former. > > > Geographically, yes. There are large areas with sparse population > and the telcos are not required to reach them. > > >> I'm not sure, but I think Micky is in the US. Is so then > >> he cannot receive texts over his landline He can only > >> receive audio. > > > > As I (and others) have pointed out the system mentioned is an audio call, > > not text. He (and you) could receive txt messages via your landlines *if* > > your telcos implemented something similar. > > > > Yes, but as far as I know there's no such option. Though > it could be handy for situations where companies insist on > a 2FA code. Many are happy to send it via email, but at > one point I was considering opening an investment account > and I couldn't sign up without a cellphone. They won't send > codes via audio. I suspect that they just want the cellphone > number and to get people using apps, so that they can track > their customers and perhaps sell personal data. > That's what I do in the UK. I have an 07xxx number (i.e. a number that looks like a mobile number in the UK) which is actually a VOIP number and I have the VOIP provider route SMS messages to my E-Mail. So 2FA authorisation numbers arrive in my E-Mail and, since I use my computer rather than my phone for most things, that's very handy. Simply copy/paste to where It needs to go. -- Chris Green ·
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 10:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <vldjh9$27rqg$2@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #146221 |
On 04.01.25 21:47, Newyana2 wrote: > Yes, but as far as I know there's no such option. Though > it could be handy for situations where companies insist on > a 2FA code. Many are happy to send it via email, but at > one point I was considering opening an investment account > and I couldn't sign up without a cellphone. They won't send > codes via audio. I suspect that they just want the cellphone > number and to get people using apps, so that they can track > their customers and perhaps sell personal data. My goodness! Again one of your conspiracy theories! -- "Roma locuta, causa finita." (Augustinus)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-04 10:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cuen4l-teih.ln1@q957.zbmc.eu> |
| In reply to | #146141 |
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote: > > In the UK receiving txt messages via landline is (was? I've not had one for > ages) commonplace: texts are delivered as an automated voice message. > Yes, still true, it depends on the way the SMS gets sent to you though. We have DECT phones on a landline which isn't yet VOIP. The DECT handsets can receive and display SMS but, as I said, depending on the sender and intermediate systems, we sometimes get an actual text and other times a computer generated voice reading the message. -- Chris Green ·
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 00:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vlcitq$mg5g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146171 |
Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote: > Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> In the UK receiving txt messages via landline is (was? I've not had one for >> ages) commonplace: texts are delivered as an automated voice message. >> > Yes, still true, it depends on the way the SMS gets sent to you > though. We have DECT phones on a landline which isn't yet VOIP. > The DECT handsets can receive and display SMS but, as I said, > depending on the sender and intermediate systems, we sometimes get an > actual text and other times a computer generated voice reading the > message. Thanks for confirming. I suspect with the move to VOIP receiving texts will be transparent in what used to be landlines.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 03:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <2t8p4lxp97.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #146229 |
On 2025-01-05 01:14, Chris wrote: > Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote: >> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> In the UK receiving txt messages via landline is (was? I've not had one for >>> ages) commonplace: texts are delivered as an automated voice message. >>> >> Yes, still true, it depends on the way the SMS gets sent to you >> though. We have DECT phones on a landline which isn't yet VOIP. >> The DECT handsets can receive and display SMS but, as I said, >> depending on the sender and intermediate systems, we sometimes get an >> actual text and other times a computer generated voice reading the >> message. > > Thanks for confirming. I suspect with the move to VOIP receiving texts will > be transparent in what used to be landlines. Depends. In Spain the change to VoIP is hidden. The telco pretends it is still POTS, and charges for all the POTS services. For example, callid has a price per month. The price structure is that of POTS. And they keep a secret how to configure a true VoIP phone (connected with ethernet or wifi, not copper pair), and do not offer the new services that VoIP allow. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-05 23:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vlf4v2$18qq3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146236 |
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > On 2025-01-05 01:14, Chris wrote: >> Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote: >>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> In the UK receiving txt messages via landline is (was? I've not had one for >>>> ages) commonplace: texts are delivered as an automated voice message. >>>> >>> Yes, still true, it depends on the way the SMS gets sent to you >>> though. We have DECT phones on a landline which isn't yet VOIP. >>> The DECT handsets can receive and display SMS but, as I said, >>> depending on the sender and intermediate systems, we sometimes get an >>> actual text and other times a computer generated voice reading the >>> message. >> >> Thanks for confirming. I suspect with the move to VOIP receiving texts will >> be transparent in what used to be landlines. > > Depends. In Spain the change to VoIP is hidden. The telco pretends it is > still POTS, and charges for all the POTS services. For example, callid > has a price per month. The price structure is that of POTS. And they > keep a secret how to configure a true VoIP phone (connected with > ethernet or wifi, not copper pair), and do not offer the new services > that VoIP allow. That's unfortunate. Fortunately here in the UK, with a bit of planning, we can port our landline number away from our usual provider to another VOIP provider. Most people won't, however. My current broadband contract is up this year and the POTS will be discontinued so will have to get this done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-06 08:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lu1i8vFd8m0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #146303 |
Chris wrote: > Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> In Spain the change to VoIP is hidden. The telco pretends it is >> still POTS, and charges for all the POTS services. > > That's unfortunate. Fortunately here in the UK, with a bit of planning, we > can port our landline number away from our usual provider to another VOIP > provider. Most people won't, however. > > My current broadband contract is up this year and the POTS will be > discontinued so will have to get this done. The spanish solution sounds rather like fibre to the cabinet, with voice cards fitted to the cabinet?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-06 14:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <lp2t4lxbso.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #146316 |
On 2025-01-06 09:23, Andy Burns wrote: > Chris wrote: > >> Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> In Spain the change to VoIP is hidden. The telco pretends it is >>> still POTS, and charges for all the POTS services. >> >> That's unfortunate. Fortunately here in the UK, with a bit of >> planning, we >> can port our landline number away from our usual provider to another VOIP >> provider. Most people won't, however. >> >> My current broadband contract is up this year and the POTS will be >> discontinued so will have to get this done. > The spanish solution sounds rather like fibre to the cabinet, with voice > cards fitted to the cabinet? It is fibre to the sitting room, to the router, or to a little box before it called "ONT". Either the ONT or the router have copper pair out, thus it is VoIP to the router, POTS out of it. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-06 13:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lu250eFfr59U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #146329 |
Carlos E.R. wrote: > Andy Burns wrote: > >> The spanish solution sounds rather like fibre to the cabinet, with >> voice cards fitted to the cabinet? > > It is fibre to the sitting room, to the router, or to a little box > before it called "ONT". Either the ONT or the router have copper pair > out, thus it is VoIP to the router, POTS out of it. Is your sitting room a mile long then :-) or was it someone else who mentioned "last mile"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-06 15:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <9s4t4lxre5.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #146330 |
On 2025-01-06 14:43, Andy Burns wrote: > Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> Andy Burns wrote: >> >>> The spanish solution sounds rather like fibre to the cabinet, with >>> voice cards fitted to the cabinet? >> >> It is fibre to the sitting room, to the router, or to a little box >> before it called "ONT". Either the ONT or the router have copper pair >> out, thus it is VoIP to the router, POTS out of it. > Is your sitting room a mile long then :-) or was it someone else who > mentioned "last mile"? Somebody else. Here Telefónica delivers fibre to to the sitting room router. If that is not feasible, it is radio. However, Vodafone does not, they do fibre to the block, then coax to the home (two coax, I think, one for internet and tv, another for phone. Unsure). They may use other technologies too. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-06 16:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vlh3ft.9bo.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #146330 |
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: > Carlos E.R. wrote: > > > Andy Burns wrote: > > > >> The spanish solution sounds rather like fibre to the cabinet, with > >> voice cards fitted to the cabinet? > > > > It is fibre to the sitting room, to the router, or to a little box > > before it called "ONT". Either the ONT or the router have copper pair > > out, thus it is VoIP to the router, POTS out of it. > > Is your sitting room a mile long then :-) or was it someone else who > mentioned "last mile"? The "last mile" was me, but in a slightly different context, i.e. the VOIP-to-POTS was not in the sitting room, but somewhere upto a 'mile' away. OTOH, I also mentioned an Aussie setup similar to what Carlos described, so being in Oz, their sitting room might well be a mile long. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-06 10:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <vlgucd$1mg82$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #146236 |
On 1/4/2025 9:54 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > Depends. In Spain the change to VoIP is hidden. The telco pretends it is > still POTS, and charges for all the POTS services. For example, callid > has a price per month. The price structure is that of POTS. And they > keep a secret how to configure a true VoIP phone (connected with > ethernet or wifi, not copper pair), and do not offer the new services > that VoIP allow. > I'm struck by how differently it works in different countries. In the US I had to give up real landline because they were charging a very high price. They didn't want to maintain the wires anymore. So I got a modem and account through my ISP. They charged $30+/month, trying to double or triple it occasionally, hoping that I wouldn't notice. So it was basically VOIP but it was sold as a different service. I now have Vonage. $16/month. There's a small device to make it work over ethernet. So my ISP could have given me the VOIP for a tiny fee, because it really was VOIP in the first place. But they pretended that they were giving me a separate phone line. And I fell for it! It took some courage to just dump their phone and get straight VOIP. The woman I live with still has a phone line through the ISP, but it might cost more if she dumped it! The prices mean nothing. Their official prices are very high, then they claim that whatever we pay is a special deal. They could charge us more for Internet than for Internet and phone if they want to. And that often happens. Companies want all the business in the houses they serve.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-04 20:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vlc86i.pa0.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #146141 |
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote: [...] > Text to speech is trivially easy to accomplish computationally. I had > freeware PC programme in the 90s which did it very well. > > In the UK receiving txt messages via landline is (was? I've not had one for > ages) commonplace: texts are delivered as an automated voice message. $DRIFT ON I don't know if it's common in other places, but in Australia, I also had it the other way around, speech-to-text: Someone left me 'voicemal', but that (human) voice was converted to text and that text was sent by SMS. Of course the text sometimes contained translation errors, but in general was quite understandable and I didn't need to call my voicemail (which wasn't enabled). $ DRIFT OFF
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-01-03 19:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vl9fok.31o.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #146098 |
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: > micky wrote: > > > When someone unknowingly sends a text to a landline, does he get some > > indication back that the text did not reach the destination, because it > > can't receive texts? > > Here in the UK, text messages *can* be delivered to landlines, either to > text-capable phones using an extension of the caller-ID delivery > mechanism, or via a robot voice ... don't you have similar over there? For my setup in The Netherlands (Vodafone mobile, Ziggo VOIP landline (via cable Internet) it does not work. Landline phone doesn't ring, SMS on the smartphone silently fails, but is charged by Vodafone :-). But this of course depends on the telcos and setups at either end, so I think one can not give a definite answer for a particular country (let alone worldwide), unless *all* telcos and setups in that country provide this functionality, which is unlikely, especially in 'civilized' countries where there are umpteen of telcos and setups.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web