Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #54749 > unrolled thread
| Started by | sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-08-13 18:07 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-10-01 21:12 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 296 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-13 18:07 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-13 21:23 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-14 01:46 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-14 12:39 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-14 15:47 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-14 22:10 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-14 17:27 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-14 16:09 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-14 19:27 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-14 23:56 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-14 18:08 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-16 21:33 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-17 18:16 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-14 02:20 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-14 12:37 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-14 15:47 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-14 17:59 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 07:45 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-15 09:08 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-15 12:16 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-18 20:43 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-08-19 13:02 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-19 15:41 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-19 14:22 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-19 18:38 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-20 02:06 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-20 07:09 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-20 10:14 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-20 15:56 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-20 17:36 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-20 13:33 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-20 21:23 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-20 16:46 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-23 09:59 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-23 12:28 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-23 10:15 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-23 15:26 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 18:08 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-24 15:04 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-24 21:33 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-24 17:28 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-25 12:31 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-25 09:55 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-24 22:59 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-08-24 22:46 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-24 19:25 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-08-25 16:23 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-25 10:22 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-25 13:30 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-08-26 05:25 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-28 14:07 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-28 09:32 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-24 22:59 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-24 15:43 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-24 19:25 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-25 12:31 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-25 09:55 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-28 14:07 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-28 09:29 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-25 09:46 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-25 10:16 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-25 17:41 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-25 13:45 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-25 12:09 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-25 15:39 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-26 07:55 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-26 11:10 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-26 10:52 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-08-26 21:13 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-26 20:04 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-26 07:57 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-28 14:07 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-25 00:26 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-20 17:39 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-20 13:46 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-20 12:22 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-20 17:36 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-20 13:33 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-20 21:23 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-20 16:46 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-20 15:08 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-20 22:48 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-20 12:42 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-20 16:18 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-20 21:31 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-20 16:46 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-20 17:36 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-20 13:33 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-20 02:06 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-19 17:24 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-19 14:11 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-20 02:06 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-08-23 00:03 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-23 17:59 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-23 14:31 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-23 17:26 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-23 20:53 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-08-24 05:31 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-08-24 05:26 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-24 10:56 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-24 04:50 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-24 13:20 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-08-24 18:59 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-24 22:59 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-08-24 18:58 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-24 19:19 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-24 22:59 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-24 04:47 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-24 09:35 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-08-24 18:57 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-24 22:59 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-24 17:48 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-25 01:05 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-24 20:10 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-08-23 00:02 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-23 09:59 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-23 10:15 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-23 15:26 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-24 10:35 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-24 09:35 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-24 10:50 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-24 15:04 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-24 15:15 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-24 19:25 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-24 20:18 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-25 09:55 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-25 09:46 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-25 13:30 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-25 12:09 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-28 14:07 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-28 10:57 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-28 09:41 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-28 13:44 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-28 17:28 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-29 10:16 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-29 11:48 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-29 11:48 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-29 17:32 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-29 23:06 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-29 21:01 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-30 09:58 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-30 10:59 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 12:30 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-08-31 12:21 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 18:32 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-09-01 09:14 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-01 16:43 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-09-01 12:33 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-09-01 05:55 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-09-01 09:41 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-09-01 07:06 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-01 10:40 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 05:18 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-01 16:43 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 07:04 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-09-01 09:14 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 05:33 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-09-01 14:36 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 07:48 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-09-05 11:08 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 04:51 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 13:16 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-09-01 14:36 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 14:56 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-09-01 13:37 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 13:21 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-09-01 17:20 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 15:06 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 08:34 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-09-02 08:49 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <12345@12345.com> - 2018-09-02 08:23 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2018-09-02 09:12 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 10:00 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 05:12 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 13:11 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 13:07 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-02 05:06 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 12:59 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-09-05 11:08 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-01 10:40 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-25 17:28 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-25 14:20 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China 123456789 <123456@123456.com> - 2018-08-25 12:09 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-25 15:39 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-08-24 19:07 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-08-24 19:02 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-24 21:33 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-24 17:28 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-23 10:34 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-23 12:28 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-23 10:15 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-23 15:26 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-23 14:09 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-23 20:12 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-23 16:28 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-23 20:36 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-23 17:28 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-23 20:31 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-08-24 05:24 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-24 10:35 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-24 05:15 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-24 09:35 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-24 21:33 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-24 17:28 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-24 22:59 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-24 17:50 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-25 01:05 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-25 17:14 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-25 13:30 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-28 14:07 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-28 07:23 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-29 21:18 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-29 23:06 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-31 14:47 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 10:44 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 07:18 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 10:44 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2018-08-31 09:20 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 12:30 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 13:43 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 16:49 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 15:24 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-08-31 16:53 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-09-01 09:38 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 13:03 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2018-08-31 17:44 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 15:20 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-28 10:57 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-29 21:18 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-29 23:06 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-31 14:47 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-31 07:11 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-08-31 10:44 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-09-01 12:33 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-01 10:40 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-09-05 11:08 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-09-05 11:58 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-05 09:15 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-09-05 13:38 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 04:53 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-09-05 14:13 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-09-06 01:36 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-09-06 14:24 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-05 09:15 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 04:55 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-09-05 07:18 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-05 10:49 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 04:57 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-09-05 13:35 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-06 08:30 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-09-06 07:04 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-09-06 20:23 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-09-06 18:00 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-06 21:13 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-07 07:02 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-09-07 13:33 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-09-07 08:04 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-07 11:09 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-09-07 16:50 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 05:15 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-09-07 19:26 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 11:32 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-09-09 14:34 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-09-08 07:14 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-09-08 15:33 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-09-07 15:04 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2018-09-08 05:11 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-06 19:34 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-09-06 01:34 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-09-06 00:16 -0400
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Josh Nack" <klu098@gmail.com> - 2018-09-01 05:25 +1000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-25 10:47 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-25 12:31 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-24 11:00 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Arlen Holder <arlenholder@nospam.net> - 2018-08-24 12:36 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2018-08-24 18:52 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2018-08-24 19:29 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-24 21:33 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-24 10:35 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-24 05:06 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-19 08:18 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-14 22:10 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-08-14 16:01 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-08-15 10:51 +0100
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-10-03 07:00 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-10-01 08:20 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 17:18 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-10-01 10:57 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2018-10-02 13:03 +0800
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 07:45 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-10-02 07:42 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 17:33 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-10-02 12:17 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 07:48 +0000
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2018-10-03 04:46 -0700
Re: Data-Only SIMS, Google Voice, SMS Forwarding, and WeChat in China "Apd" <not@all.invalid> - 2018-10-01 21:12 +0100
Page 12 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 Next page →
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 16:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <310820181649463364%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55348 |
In article <pmc99g$274$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote: > I've had to change my area code 3 > times so far -- nothing, 213, 818 and 626. Annoyingly wasteful to have > to throw away rubber stamps :-( there has always been an area code. it never was nothing. it also doesn't matter anymore, store the 10 digit number and it will work anywhere in the usa. add the usa's country code and it will work worldwide.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 15:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pmcf6o$80n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55348 |
On 8/31/2018 1:43 PM, The Real Bev wrote: <snip> > Oh fine, NOW they do it this way. I've had to change my area code 3 > times so far -- nothing, 213, 818 and 626. Annoyingly wasteful to have > to throw away rubber stamps :-( I read about rubber stamps in my history book.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 16:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pmckde$25h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55366 |
On 08/31/2018 03:24 PM, sms wrote:
> On 8/31/2018 1:43 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Oh fine, NOW they do it this way. I've had to change my area code 3
>> times so far -- nothing, 213, 818 and 626. Annoyingly wasteful to have
>> to throw away rubber stamps :-(
>
> I read about rubber stamps in my history book.
Useful whenever you have to fill in a form requiring name/address/phone.
Good for return address on snail-mail envelopes. Hubby has a slick
one somewhere with a picture of a biplane and an AIR MAIL slogan. He
used it back in the dark ages when we had a mail-order business.
If you want an endless supply of sticky name+address labels, contribute
a buck to a charity. My mom still gets them. The post office sold her
name at my address to whoever was buying, so I also get lots of them in
HER name, and she died in 2007.
--
Cheers, Bev
"I never understood why anyone would go to the trouble to write a novel
when you can just go out and buy one for a few bucks." -- lpogoda
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 09:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <QrKdnX1op_3CCxfGnZ2dnUU7-cednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #55375 |
On 2018-08-31 19:53, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 08/31/2018 03:24 PM, sms wrote:
>> On 8/31/2018 1:43 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Oh fine, NOW they do it this way. I've had to change my area code 3
>>> times so far -- nothing, 213, 818 and 626. Annoyingly wasteful to have
>>> to throw away rubber stamps :-(
>>
>> I read about rubber stamps in my history book.
>
> Useful whenever you have to fill in a form requiring name/address/phone.
How do you fill out a form on a computer using a rubber stamp?
Is that like the blond using a word processor and white-out all over the
screen?
--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 13:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pmerau$a8g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55394 |
On 09/01/2018 06:38 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2018-08-31 19:53, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 08/31/2018 03:24 PM, sms wrote:
>>> On 8/31/2018 1:43 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Oh fine, NOW they do it this way. I've had to change my area code 3
>>>> times so far -- nothing, 213, 818 and 626. Annoyingly wasteful to have
>>>> to throw away rubber stamps :-(
>>>
>>> I read about rubber stamps in my history book.
>>
>> Useful whenever you have to fill in a form requiring name/address/phone.
>
> How do you fill out a form on a computer using a rubber stamp?
>
> Is that like the blond using a word processor and white-out all over the
> screen?
:-) Actually, the only paper forms I have to fill out now are at a new
doctor's office, and the more efficient ones ask you for most of the
info over the phone and have the forms pre-printed when you get to the
office.
Big nuisance now would be remembering the new area code -- much like
remembering to use '2018' instead of '2017' when needed.
Used to be different when I paid bills with checks rather than via
computer -- one of the greatest blessings conferred upon us in the last
ten years by technology!
--
Cheers, Bev
"What's truly sad is that your vote counts the same as mine."
-- S. Brown
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 17:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <fr2dnVPoco06KxTGnZ2dnUU7-cudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #55321 |
On 2018-08-31 12:20, Savageduck wrote:
> now local calls include the area code in the dialing procedure. So while I
> have 805 numbers for both cellphone, landline, and Google voice, a new
> neighbor might/will have an *820* number, and to call that neighbor I would
> have to dial 1 + 820 + (7 digit number), rather than only the 7 digit number.
>
> <http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/805areacode/>
We lost 7 digit dialing a decade ago (±) and then the overlays came on too.
Dallas-FW even earlier.
--
"2/3 of Donald Trump's wives were immigrants. Proof that we
need immigrants to do jobs that most Americans wouldn't do."
- unknown protester
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 15:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pmceuv$6tu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55361 |
On 8/31/2018 2:44 PM, Alan Browne wrote: <snip> > We lost 7 digit dialing a decade ago (±) and then the overlays came on too. > > Dallas-FW even earlier. On my free VOIP "landline" (Obihai Obi-202 with Google Voice), I programmed it for 7 digit dialing with my home area code. If it only sees 7 digits being dialed it knows to add 408. Well not totally free, if you want 911 service it costs $1.50 per month through a different company.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-28 10:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <280820181057581242%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55204 |
In article <3fhaod9njs9draokg9tq33o0nile1lukib@4ax.com>, Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> wrote: > >> > >> Charging for (domestic) incoming texts (and calls) is a US-only thing. > >> > >> The rest of the world doesn't have such silly practices. > > > >there's nothing silly about it. > > > >callers should *not* pay extra because the recipient chose to use a > >mobile phone and is using air time. > > > >if someone wants to use a mobile phone, *they* pay for the convenience > >and airtime. > > > >it's the rest of the world that got it backwards. > > No. It's always been a general principle with the phone system that > the caller pays. If you make a long distance call YOU PAY. It isn't > the fault of the person you're calling that he lives far away from > you. If you make an international call YOU PAY. It isn't the other > person's fault you're not in the same country as him. Why should the > principle be any different just because it's a mobile phone. The > mobile user has already paid for his network access through his > subscription. not understanding it, as usual. of course the caller pays for the call. the issue is that the caller should not pay *extra* for the call because of the type of phone the recipient chooses to use, something which the caller has absolutely no control over. the person with the mobile phone is the one using airtime, so *they* should be paying for their use of airtime. it's their choice to use mobile. callers don't care what type of phone the recipient is using and should not be financing the recipient's choice. this is particularly a problem for businesses who use mobile phones because callers will be more likely to call one of their competitors with a landline to avoid paying anything extra for the call. those with mobile phones should pay for airtime *they* use. very simple and very fair. > It's the same with almost and kind of service. If you send a piece of > mail through the post YOU PAY. If you drive to visit a friend YOU PAY > for the gasoline, not the person you're visiting. still not understanding it. postage depends on weight and sometimes distance, not who is receiving the item. it doesn't cost anything extra to send a letter to grandma than it does to the grandkids. fuel costs depends on how far you drive and what kind of fuel used, not the type of destination. it doesn't cost extra to drive 20 miles to the beach versus 20 miles to work. > As for "it's the rest of the world that got it backwards". What > arrogance, you stupid ass. That's the way 95% of the world choose to > do it. what's arrogant is expecting others to pay for resources *you* chose to use. if you want to use a mobile phone, by all means do so, but you should be paying for all airtime *you* use.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-29 21:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <24udodlsfkjtdunipf6fiq403sahlshh0v@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #55208 |
On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 10:57:58 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <3fhaod9njs9draokg9tq33o0nile1lukib@4ax.com>, Chris in >Makati <mail@nospam.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >> Charging for (domestic) incoming texts (and calls) is a US-only thing. >> >> >> >> The rest of the world doesn't have such silly practices. >> > >> >there's nothing silly about it. >> > >> >callers should *not* pay extra because the recipient chose to use a >> >mobile phone and is using air time. >> > >> >if someone wants to use a mobile phone, *they* pay for the convenience >> >and airtime. >> > >> >it's the rest of the world that got it backwards. >> >> No. It's always been a general principle with the phone system that >> the caller pays. If you make a long distance call YOU PAY. It isn't >> the fault of the person you're calling that he lives far away from >> you. If you make an international call YOU PAY. It isn't the other >> person's fault you're not in the same country as him. Why should the >> principle be any different just because it's a mobile phone. The >> mobile user has already paid for his network access through his >> subscription. > >not understanding it, as usual. > >of course the caller pays for the call. > >the issue is that the caller should not pay *extra* for the call >because of the type of phone the recipient chooses to use, something >which the caller has absolutely no control over. YOU pay for the call YOU have chosen to make. That's how it works with every other type of phone call and everything else YOU choose to purchase. >the person with the mobile phone is the one using airtime, so *they* >should be paying for their use of airtime. it's their choice to use >mobile. callers don't care what type of phone the recipient is using >and should not be financing the recipient's choice. The investment required to install and maintain a physical landline is orders of magnitude higher than the cost of transmitting a radio signal. So you might as well reverse your argument to say that a landline subscriber should pay more to receive a call than a mobile user. After all he's chosen to have all that copper wire running to his home and he ties up expensive line equipment in his local telephone exchange. >this is particularly a problem for businesses who use mobile phones >because callers will be more likely to call one of their competitors >with a landline to avoid paying anything extra for the call. >those with mobile phones should pay for airtime *they* use. very simple >and very fair. Again, you could say those requiring miles of copper wire to physically connect them should pay more for that. A radio signal is way cheaper in comparison. >> It's the same with almost and kind of service. If you send a piece of >> mail through the post YOU PAY. If you drive to visit a friend YOU PAY >> for the gasoline, not the person you're visiting. > >still not understanding it. I'm the one explaining the way the industry standard works everywhere else except where you live. It's for you to understand, not me. >postage depends on weight and sometimes distance, not who is receiving >the item. it doesn't cost anything extra to send a letter to grandma >than it does to the grandkids. The recipient of a letter doesn't pay anything to receive it because they were not the one to order the service. >fuel costs depends on how far you drive and what kind of fuel used, not >the type of destination. it doesn't cost extra to drive 20 miles to the >beach versus 20 miles to work. > >> As for "it's the rest of the world that got it backwards". What >> arrogance, you stupid ass. That's the way 95% of the world choose to >> do it. > >what's arrogant is expecting others to pay for resources *you* chose to >use. The arrogance is the small minority believing everybody else is wrong. >if you want to use a mobile phone, by all means do so, but you should >be paying for all airtime *you* use. No. That's not the way 95% of the world has decided to do it. The person initiating any service pays for it. The recipient of a phone call is simply answering YOUR call in the same way as someone who receives a letter in the mail opens a letter that YOU sent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-29 23:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <290820182306441895%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55237 |
In article <24udodlsfkjtdunipf6fiq403sahlshh0v@4ax.com>, Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> wrote: > >the issue is that the caller should not pay *extra* for the call > >because of the type of phone the recipient chooses to use, something > >which the caller has absolutely no control over. > > YOU pay for the call YOU have chosen to make. That's how it works with > every other type of phone call and everything else YOU choose to > purchase. exactly, and *you* pay for the airtime that *you* choose to use. calls made to or from landlines aren't using any airtime, therefore there are no airtime fees. calls made to or from mobile phones do use airtime, so the owner of the mobile device using the airtime pays for it, either per minute or as part of a plan. if both parties are using mobile phones, then each pays for their own airtime use. simple and easy to understand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 14:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rdhiodlimppig8jt66sn3k04k8b38j7srb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #55264 |
On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 23:06:44 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <24udodlsfkjtdunipf6fiq403sahlshh0v@4ax.com>, Chris in >Makati <mail@nospam.com> wrote: > >> >the issue is that the caller should not pay *extra* for the call >> >because of the type of phone the recipient chooses to use, something >> >which the caller has absolutely no control over. >> >> YOU pay for the call YOU have chosen to make. That's how it works with >> every other type of phone call and everything else YOU choose to >> purchase. > >exactly, and *you* pay for the airtime that *you* choose to use. > >calls made to or from landlines aren't using any airtime, therefore >there are no airtime fees. Why should there only be a charge for using airtime and not for line usage? Installing landlines for phones is very labor intensive and much more expensive than providing a radio signal for a mobile. You make the call, you pay for it. It's a simple principle that has been around for decades.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 07:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pmbiaf$8v1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55310 |
On 8/31/2018 6:47 AM, Chris in Makati wrote: > You make the call, you pay for it. It's a simple principle that has > been around for decades. It is a lot simpler to just charge one party, just the way landlines and pay phones work. It will all even out if you charge 2x to call a mobile and nothing to receive that call, versus charging 1x to both the calling and receiving party. Unfortunately, what has transpired, both with landline and mobile phones is some abuse when it comes to termination charges. This is why you see so many global SIM cards using Estonian phone numbers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-08-31 10:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <310820181044499372%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55310 |
In article <rdhiodlimppig8jt66sn3k04k8b38j7srb@4ax.com>, Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> wrote: > >> >the issue is that the caller should not pay *extra* for the call > >> >because of the type of phone the recipient chooses to use, something > >> >which the caller has absolutely no control over. > >> > >> YOU pay for the call YOU have chosen to make. That's how it works with > >> every other type of phone call and everything else YOU choose to > >> purchase. > > > >exactly, and *you* pay for the airtime that *you* choose to use. > > > >calls made to or from landlines aren't using any airtime, therefore > >there are no airtime fees. > > Why should there only be a charge for using airtime and not for line > usage? Installing landlines for phones is very labor intensive and > much more expensive than providing a radio signal for a mobile. there is a charge for landline usage. phone service is not free. these days, it's typically a flat rate for unlimited calls, but in the past, there were various plans at various prices. long distance calls usually had additional fees (some plans included it), and off-peak calls were normally less expensive. > You make the call, you pay for it. It's a simple principle that has > been around for decades. you use airtime, you pay for it. very simple. don't force *other* people to pay for *your* airtime usage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 12:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ldkkoddb6djugg1ivotpi494rmt2vod3vo@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #55314 |
On Fri, 31 Aug 2018 10:44:49 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <rdhiodlimppig8jt66sn3k04k8b38j7srb@4ax.com>, Chris in >Makati <mail@nospam.com> wrote: > >> >> >the issue is that the caller should not pay *extra* for the call >> >> >because of the type of phone the recipient chooses to use, something >> >> >which the caller has absolutely no control over. >> >> >> >> YOU pay for the call YOU have chosen to make. That's how it works with >> >> every other type of phone call and everything else YOU choose to >> >> purchase. >> > >> >exactly, and *you* pay for the airtime that *you* choose to use. >> > >> >calls made to or from landlines aren't using any airtime, therefore >> >there are no airtime fees. >> >> Why should there only be a charge for using airtime and not for line >> usage? Installing landlines for phones is very labor intensive and >> much more expensive than providing a radio signal for a mobile. > >there is a charge for landline usage. phone service is not free. > >these days, it's typically a flat rate for unlimited calls, but in the >past, there were various plans at various prices. long distance calls >usually had additional fees (some plans included it), and off-peak >calls were normally less expensive. > >> You make the call, you pay for it. It's a simple principle that has >> been around for decades. > >you use airtime, you pay for it. very simple. > >don't force *other* people to pay for *your* airtime usage. Once again you've evaded the question. For the third time of trying, why should the called party pay for airtime usage when there's no similar charge for landline users? As I keep pointing out, a landline involves a large investment to lay miles of copper wire, plus the exchange line equipment, plus the maintenance for it all. A single mobile cellsite can serve thousands of users for far lower cost, so why this obsession with "airtime"?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-01 10:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <010920181040322151%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55391 |
In article <ldkkoddb6djugg1ivotpi494rmt2vod3vo@4ax.com>, Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> wrote: > >> You make the call, you pay for it. It's a simple principle that has > >> been around for decades. > > > >you use airtime, you pay for it. very simple. > > > >don't force *other* people to pay for *your* airtime usage. > > Once again you've evaded the question. no evasion at all. i keep explaining it and you keep ignoring it. > For the third time of trying, why should the called party pay for > airtime usage when there's no similar charge for landline users? landlines aren't free. landline users pay for their phone service and in some cases, pay per minute on top of the monthly fees, which i've explained already. > As I keep pointing out, a landline involves a large investment to lay > miles of copper wire, plus the exchange line equipment, plus the > maintenance for it all. what you fail to understand is that landlines are not a limited resource the way cellular is. once a cell site is at capacity, no more calls can be made or received. cell sites aren't free to install and maintain either, and often met with community resistance because they're ugly or the tinfoil hat crowd wants to protect people from the 'dangerous radiation'. for some reason, multiple telephone poles with wires between them are not considered ugly. > A single mobile cellsite can serve thousands of users for far lower > cost, so why this obsession with "airtime"? not at the same time, it can't. again, airtime is a limited resource, and when a cell site is full, no more calls can be made or received. in dense areas, there are often multiple cell sites per city block to handle the demand, and in some cases, a femtocell on each floor of a building. the limit with landlines is the central office itself, which can handle a *lot* more calls than a single cell site ever could.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-05 11:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <pj9vodh5e4rk8aefhsnqqsufd7brg5bc14@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #55401 |
On Sat, 01 Sep 2018 10:40:32 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <ldkkoddb6djugg1ivotpi494rmt2vod3vo@4ax.com>, Chris in >Makati <mail@nospam.com> wrote: > >> >> You make the call, you pay for it. It's a simple principle that has >> >> been around for decades. >> > >> >you use airtime, you pay for it. very simple. >> > >> >don't force *other* people to pay for *your* airtime usage. >> >> Once again you've evaded the question. > >no evasion at all. i keep explaining it and you keep ignoring it. > >> For the third time of trying, why should the called party pay for >> airtime usage when there's no similar charge for landline users? > >landlines aren't free. landline users pay for their phone service and >in some cases, pay per minute on top of the monthly fees, which i've >explained already. Exactly. Landline callers pay for calls THEY make. They don't pay for received calls. That's what I've been trying to get you to understand. >> As I keep pointing out, a landline involves a large investment to lay >> miles of copper wire, plus the exchange line equipment, plus the >> maintenance for it all. > >what you fail to understand is that landlines are not a limited >resource the way cellular is. once a cell site is at capacity, no more >calls can be made or received. Nonsense. A cellsite can have as much additional equipment installed as necessary to meet the demand. >cell sites aren't free to install and maintain either, and often met >with community resistance because they're ugly or the tinfoil hat crowd >wants to protect people from the 'dangerous radiation'. > >for some reason, multiple telephone poles with wires between them are >not considered ugly. Irrelevant to the basic question, which you are evading again. >> A single mobile cellsite can serve thousands of users for far lower >> cost, so why this obsession with "airtime"? > >not at the same time, it can't. Yes it can. A cellsite can be expanded as much as necessary, just as new landlines can be installed as necessary. The difference is the cost of installing new landlines is hugely labour intensive and costs far more per line than the cost of providing mobile coverage over the same area. >again, airtime is a limited resource, and when a cell site is full, no >more calls can be made or received. And no more landline users can be connected if there isn't the capacity. This is all irrelevant to the question that you keep trying to dodge. >in dense areas, there are often multiple cell sites per city block to >handle the demand, and in some cases, a femtocell on each floor of a >building. Exactly. So now you've contradicted the nonsense you were talking about it being impossible to expand mobile coverage. >the limit with landlines is the central office itself, which can handle >a *lot* more calls than a single cell site ever could. Why must it be a *single* cell? You don't seem to understand radio network planning. You put in as many cellsites as needed to cover the area in question. Anyway, you're just trying to divert the issue away from the basic question. All this stuff about network capacity is totally irrelevant to whether someone should pay when another person makes a call to them. I don't pay to receive a letter that someone has sent me. I don't pay when somebody calls my landline. I don't pay when somebody calls my mobile, nor do people in the rest of the world. It's a screwed up system you have where you are that most others don't follow.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-05 11:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pmone1.mo.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55540 |
Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> wrote: > On Sat, 01 Sep 2018 10:40:32 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> > wrote: > > >In article <ldkkoddb6djugg1ivotpi494rmt2vod3vo@4ax.com>, Chris in > >Makati <mail@nospam.com> wrote: > > > >> >> You make the call, you pay for it. It's a simple principle that has > >> >> been around for decades. > >> > > >> >you use airtime, you pay for it. very simple. > >> > > >> >don't force *other* people to pay for *your* airtime usage. > >> > >> Once again you've evaded the question. > > > >no evasion at all. i keep explaining it and you keep ignoring it. > > > >> For the third time of trying, why should the called party pay for > >> airtime usage when there's no similar charge for landline users? > > > >landlines aren't free. landline users pay for their phone service and > >in some cases, pay per minute on top of the monthly fees, which i've > >explained already. > > Exactly. Landline callers pay for calls THEY make. They don't pay for > received calls. That's what I've been trying to get you to understand. > > >> As I keep pointing out, a landline involves a large investment to lay > >> miles of copper wire, plus the exchange line equipment, plus the > >> maintenance for it all. > > > >what you fail to understand is that landlines are not a limited > >resource the way cellular is. once a cell site is at capacity, no more > >calls can be made or received. > > Nonsense. A cellsite can have as much additional equipment installed > as necessary to meet the demand. Apparently nospam thinks (FSVSVO 'think') that POTS/'landlines'/ <whatever> is not a shared network [1]. That's ofcourse false and hence anything derived from that bogus assumption is also nonsense. Not to mention that a 'landline' doesn't have to be a POTS line. Nowadays a 'fixed' phone often uses a network which is completely - i.e. end-to-end - shared, via VOIP, etc.. So the bastards with such a 'landline' should pay as well for incoming calls, because they're using 'airtime', i.e. bandwidth! [...] [1] Only the 'Local loop'/'Last mile' part is non-shared.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-05 09:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <050920180915562664%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55541 |
In article <pmone1.mo.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > Not to mention that a 'landline' doesn't have to be a POTS line. > Nowadays a 'fixed' phone often uses a network which is completely - i.e. > end-to-end - shared, via VOIP, etc.. So the bastards with such a > 'landline' should pay as well for incoming calls, because they're using > 'airtime', i.e. bandwidth! many voip customers do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-05 13:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pmota4.5v8.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55547 |
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article <pmone1.mo.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg > <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: Implicit conceding of - silently snipped - main argument duly noted. QED. HTH. HAND. EOD. NK. > > Not to mention that a 'landline' doesn't have to be a POTS line. > > Nowadays a 'fixed' phone often uses a network which is completely - i.e. > > end-to-end - shared, via VOIP, etc.. So the bastards with such a > > 'landline' should pay as well for incoming calls, because they're using > > 'airtime', i.e. bandwidth! > > many voip customers do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-09-06 04:53 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fvan0iFkbcpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55547 |
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:050920180915562664%nospam@nospam.invalid... > In article <pmone1.mo.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg > <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > >> Not to mention that a 'landline' doesn't have to be a POTS line. >> Nowadays a 'fixed' phone often uses a network which is completely - i.e. >> end-to-end - shared, via VOIP, etc.. So the bastards with such a >> 'landline' should pay as well for incoming calls, because they're using >> 'airtime', i.e. bandwidth! > > many voip customers do. Fuck all do in the rest of the world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web