 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/09/2014 17:28, Doctor John wrote:
> On 03/09/14 16:35, Stephen wrote:
>> On 03/09/2014 15:48, Doctor John wrote:
>>> The London codes are in the form 020 x yyy zzzz.
>>
>> Can you remember when it went from 01?
>>
>
> 1990: London split into 071 and 081 numbers. This should have doubled
> the number of lines available but the idiots forgot to allow the re-use
> of the first 3 following digits (the exchange code). Thus if 071 932
> xxxx existed, you couldn't have 081 932 xxxx.
> 1995: 071 and 081 changed to 0171 and 0181 for no apparent reason.
> (Actually I think they realised their previous mistake).
> 2000: 020 area code introduced and all local codes lengthened by
> prefixing with 7 (for 0171) and 8 (for 0181). The 3 prefix was
> introduced about 5 years later.
>
Thanks John.
I pine for the days when I could dial GOV 1234. The phone would ring,
the television would be turned down and the whole house would listen in.
Now some people don't even leave the room to have a private
conversation. So things haven't changed much. Except the string is longer.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
