 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 04.09.2014 20:02, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>> CSB 1:
>> There was an area close to where my wife used to live that was a
>> complete dead zone as far as cell phone signals were concerned. We'd
>> routinely see trucks from the various cell-phone carriers drive by with
>> all kinds of anntennas on the roofs. They apparently found that the
>> culprit was some old lady with a malfunctioning black and white TV from
>> the 60s.
>
> When I was a teenager, I would occasionally catch my portable stereo
> emitting very quiet, muffled mumblings of human voices. It sounded like
> CBR chatter. And there was a house across the street with a radio aerial
> that was about 40 feet tall...
We could eavesdrop on our neighbor's CBR transmissions using an old tape
recorder (from the pre-cassette era).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/09/2014 08:51 PM, Stephen wrote:
> On 04/09/2014 19:03, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> I meant, I thought everybody uses Internet chat and video
>> conferencing now... (Well, perhaps not in business circles, but for
>> social...)
>
> I take it you do?
Since when do I have anyone to talk to? :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 04/09/2014 21:59, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 04/09/2014 08:51 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> On 04/09/2014 19:03, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> I meant, I thought everybody uses Internet chat and video
>>> conferencing now... (Well, perhaps not in business circles, but for
>>> social...)
>>
>> I take it you do?
>
> Since when do I have anyone to talk to? :-P
You use Skype to talk to your mum?
(How is she coping since you ran away from home?)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 08:33:48 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 04/09/2014 03:47 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I don't have a landline. Just mobile.
>
> I would do that, except then I have to stand outside to make phone
> calls.
>
> (The signal strength outside the building is fine, but inside there's no
> reception at all. Presumably because the building is made of metal...)
Nope.
My apartment building is 24 floors of steel and concrete. No problem
with reception at all.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 08:34:35 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 04/09/2014 03:46 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 13:09:48 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>
>>> You'd think that with everybody moving to VOIP, demand for actual
>>> telephone numbers would be *rapidly decreasing*...
>>
>> No, because everyone with a VOIP number still needs a POTS number,
>> because that's all the old system knows.
>
> Really? You need an actual phone number to run Skype? That's... that's
> like needing a static IP address to use IRC!
You need an actual phone number if people who use a real phone system
want to call you on Skype. That's what "Skype In" is, IIRC.
How else do you think someone with a regular, normal phone is going to
phone you on a Skype only setup?
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 19:03:46 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 04/09/2014 09:32 AM, Aydan wrote:
>> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
>>> On 04/09/2014 03:46 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 13:09:48 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You'd think that with everybody moving to VOIP, demand for actual
>>>>> telephone numbers would be *rapidly decreasing*...
>>>>
>>>> No, because everyone with a VOIP number still needs a POTS number,
>>>> because that's all the old system knows.
>>>
>>> Really? You need an actual phone number to run Skype? That's... that's
>>> like needing a static IP address to use IRC!
>>
>> What he means is someone who wants to call you from a non-IP phone has
>> to have a way to reach you, and yes, you can have a "normal" phone
>> number mapped to your skype account so people can call you on skype
>> from ordinary phones.
>
> Oh, right. Well yes, *clearly* if you want to connect to POTS, you need
> a POTS number. I meant, I thought everybody uses Internet chat and video
> conferencing now... (Well, perhaps not in business circles, but for
> social...)
Actually, we use a combination of Google Hangouts, Webex, a thing called
"Biba" (which is actually kinda interesting), and Cisco Jabber (which
gives me an outside phone number).
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Why UK having such a strong economy doesn't renew its phone system and
simply makes it xxx yyyy yyyy, xxx: are codes, yyyy yyyy: phone numbers,
because looks like UK is complicating it more needlessly over time, this
should be specially easy IMO since UK has engineering and other
resources so UK make a general call to UK engineers and design it on
digital, and have an analog backup system, in case the digital 1 fails.
If you need more numbers: xxx yyyy yyyy y that way you increase 10 times
the availability, of course the analog should have room for this as well
as the digital 1, why keep building on the old system? I know is money
but UK economy AFAIK is strong and it'd better I think, don't know the
feasibility of such a project but I'd bet UK Gov hasn't even weighed the
possibility of it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/09/14 16:37, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Why UK having such a strong economy doesn't renew its phone system and
> simply makes it xxx yyyy yyyy, xxx: are codes, yyyy yyyy: phone numbers,
> because looks like UK is complicating it more needlessly over time, this
> should be specially easy IMO since UK has engineering and other
> resources so UK make a general call to UK engineers and design it on
> digital, and have an analog backup system, in case the digital 1 fails.
> If you need more numbers: xxx yyyy yyyy y that way you increase 10 times
> the availability, of course the analog should have room for this as well
> as the digital 1, why keep building on the old system? I know is money
> but UK economy AFAIK is strong and it'd better I think, don't know the
> feasibility of such a project but I'd bet UK Gov hasn't even weighed the
> possibility of it.
I beg to differ. Although the system being used at present adds nearly
10 million numbers each time you add another 'x' prefix (using my
example 020 x yyy zzzz) and yours would add nearly 100 million, the
present system is much easier to implement. Remember, if you're going to
change existing numbers, you have to inform _every_ person what their
new number is going to be - an impossible task to complete with 100%
success. The way BT is proceeding means that you don't have to inform
anyone of the additional numbers since existing lines keep the same
number and only new lines get a new prefix.
John
--
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/09/2014 06:48 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> The way BT is proceeding means that you don't have to inform
> anyone of the additional numbers since existing lines keep the same
> number and only new lines get a new prefix.
It isn't even BT. Ofcom have decided that this is what must happen. BT
is merely the messenger.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 05/09/2014 16:37, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Why UK having such a strong economy doesn't renew its phone system and
> simply makes it xxx yyyy yyyy, xxx: are codes, yyyy yyyy: phone numbers,
> because looks like UK is complicating it more needlessly over time, this
> should be specially easy IMO since UK has engineering and other
> resources so UK make a general call to UK engineers and design it on
> digital, and have an analog backup system, in case the digital 1 fails.
> If you need more numbers: xxx yyyy yyyy y that way you increase 10 times
> the availability, of course the analog should have room for this as well
> as the digital 1, why keep building on the old system? I know is money
> but UK economy AFAIK is strong and it'd better I think, don't know the
> feasibility of such a project but I'd bet UK Gov hasn't even weighed the
> possibility of it.
In my opinion there are two reasons.
To be funded, national projects have to be a vote winner and spending a
very large number of Pounds Sterling to change phone numbers (again) is
not going to be attractive to politicians. Our infrastructure is no
longer in public hands.* It was sold off to private concerns. So there
is also the question of who is going to pay for it.
The other reason is we do not have a good track record for large scale
IT projects. The only people who make money are the consultancies and
often they are cancelled.
* The exception to this is Kingston upon Hull in Yorkshire (say no
more). They have the only municipal telephone system in the UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KCOM_Group
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
