UKVoIPTalk.com

"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnf5e52p.p8d.paul@challenger.my.home[color=blue]
> On 2007-05-25, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:[color=green]
> > Indeed. But a company that uses a munged address and
> > doesn't provide a website where you can check out their
> > products is somewhat suspicious to my mind.[/color]
>
> But they are not advertising anything nor are they
> inviting people to contact them directly. They (whoever
> they are) are asking a simple question on
> uk.telecom.voip, a discussion group, probably to illicit
> discussion regarding VoIP in the UK.[/color]

Right. The part of your sentence above "whoever they are" says it all to
me. If they were a reputable organisation they wouldn't hide.

Ivor

"Infant Newbie" <infant@newbie.new> wrote in message
news:f37qir$9ig$1@news.freedom2surf.net

[snip]
[color=blue]
> Still not giving away any details of websites etc.[/color]

Why not..?
[color=blue]
> Not even asking for Beta Testers.
> Certainly Doesnt want Ivor to be a Beta Tester.[/color]

That's just as well, because it's the last thing I'd want to be.

Ivor

Because the website, which might change, is not up yet ! At the moment, we
have a couple of servers up and we are testing and configuring stuff.
Hopefully, you will appreciate our effort to get things right on day 1.
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:5bpfrhF2u8esqU1@mid.individual.net...[color=blue]
> "Infant Newbie" <infant@newbie.new> wrote in message
> news:f37qir$9ig$1@news.freedom2surf.net
>
> [snip]
>[color=green]
>> Still not giving away any details of websites etc.[/color]
>
> Why not..?
>[color=green]
>> Not even asking for Beta Testers.
>> Certainly Doesnt want Ivor to be a Beta Tester.[/color]
>
> That's just as well, because it's the last thing I'd want to be.
>
> Ivor
>
>[/color]

"Infant Newbie" <infant@newbie.new> wrote in message
news:f37qir$9ig$1@news.freedom2surf.net...[color=blue]
>I have to reply to myself because the thread is so long. I dont want to
>start a "spam war". Ivor, I live in London and I dont spam. My email
>address is invalid, just like yours. I do have a rarely used yahoo address
>which you can contact me directly on - if you wish. its meshcode at
>xxxxxhoo.co.uk. I have read the whole thread and I will condense the wish
>list and reply to all.
>
> HOWEVER, one thing worries me and maybe you guys can tell me how to manage
> it....SUPPORT !!
> How can I provide proper live person on the phone (note I said person, not
> cretin) with some knowledge and keep the service reasonably priced. I know
> what people think about non-UK call centres so lets not even go there!
>
> Most of the things required are usually sourced from BT Wholesale and I
> will surely try to provide a good service.
>
> Second thing - how does the provider improve the sound quality when so
> much of it depends on the connection from the end user?[/color]

Bart,

You have hit probably the biggest issue on the head, customers are hard
people they want good service
and they don't want to pay for it. customers want free geographic calls, all
functions, and cheap costs and a live support
person who will answer the calls in 3 rings and they want the moon on a
stick.

Working in support in another industry I see supporting VOIP a nightmare,
You not only have to support your systems but also
other peoples internet connection/router/softphones/hardphones/ata all for a
customer who may only add £10 credit a quarter. In other
industries you would maybe charge customers £80/hour for decent tech
support.

I think having live telephone support is nice it is really an impossible
dream, unless a user whants to pay for it either via services charges for
the
VOIP services or having premium chargable support ( in addition to standard
support - no likes only form of support to be premium rate number)

or you can go down the Betamax route, they have several VOIP services which
offer no support, but prices are so cheap and people get such a good deal
that you kind of let the issues go when you have them as the savings are
huge.

Sound quality can vary a lot from different services providers.
The voice provider needs to have the bandwidth to cope with all incoming and
outgoing channels
should have different internet backbones
plus there is the routing of calls, some cheaper companies use grey routes
to channel calls abroad and quality can be iffy

Ivor Jones wrote:[color=blue]
> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrnf5e4tp.p8d.paul@challenger.my.home[color=green]
>> On 2007-05-24, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> "Brian A" <no_spam_bca1000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:j6oa535sum1fjgqvgb3lh9cl2fqqsdkikm@4ax.com
>>>> On Thu, 24 May 2007 10:21:38 +0100, "RH"
>>>> <rh@no-spicedham.exelsys.com> wrote:
>>>>> I hate spam as much as the next person, spam as far
>>>>> as I define it is ; 1 way blatent advertising.
>>>>> this message did not advertise any company or
>>>>> product and was a genuine question trying to bring
>>>>> up a worthwhile discussion.
>>>> I agree, it the post did not advertise anything, so it
>>>> might not be considerd as spam - unless you consider
>>>> it as market research spam.
>>> It's still spam. It was unsolicited and the poster
>>> doesn't give an email address that is valid,[/color]
>> So speaks <ivor@depsammed.invalid>. Nice troll, Ivor.[/color]
>
> Not at all. Change .invalid (the top level domain specifically intended
> for the purpose) to .com and mail will reach me.[/color]

And yet the email address you post from IS invalid. Just as the OPs. Not
only that, but neither of you provide instructions in your posts on who
to derive a valid email address.

Ivor Jones wrote:[color=blue]
> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrnf5e52p.p8d.paul@challenger.my.home[color=green]
>> On 2007-05-25, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:[color=darkred]
>>> Indeed. But a company that uses a munged address and
>>> doesn't provide a website where you can check out their
>>> products is somewhat suspicious to my mind.[/color]
>> But they are not advertising anything nor are they
>> inviting people to contact them directly. They (whoever
>> they are) are asking a simple question on
>> uk.telecom.voip, a discussion group, probably to illicit
>> discussion regarding VoIP in the UK.[/color]
>
> Right. The part of your sentence above "whoever they are" says it all to
> me. If they were a reputable organisation they wouldn't hide.[/color]

So because they have not give you proof of identity in some form, they
must be spammers? Even though it is completely irrelevant for their post?

"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f38qo4$2ema$2@energise.enta.net

[snip]
[color=blue]
> And yet the email address you post from IS invalid. Just
> as the OPs. Not only that, but neither of you provide
> instructions in your posts on who to derive a valid email
> address.[/color]

I would have thought it was obvious to anyone with a modicum of
intelligence. I don't particularly *want* to receive mail from anyone who
can't work that out.

Ivor

"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f38qrn$2ema$3@energise.enta.net[color=blue]
> Ivor Jones wrote:[color=green]
> > "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:slrnf5e52p.p8d.paul@challenger.my.home[color=darkred]
> > > On 2007-05-25, Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Indeed. But a company that uses a munged address and
> > > > doesn't provide a website where you can check out
> > > > their products is somewhat suspicious to my mind.
> > > But they are not advertising anything nor are they
> > > inviting people to contact them directly. They
> > > (whoever they are) are asking a simple question on
> > > uk.telecom.voip, a discussion group, probably to
> > > illicit discussion regarding VoIP in the UK.[/color]
> >
> > Right. The part of your sentence above "whoever they
> > are" says it all to me. If they were a reputable
> > organisation they wouldn't hide.[/color]
>
> So because they have not give you proof of identity in
> some form, they must be spammers? Even though it is
> completely irrelevant for their post?[/color]

It isn't irrelevant. The post was spam. The lack of a valid address merely
compounds it.

Ivor

Ivor Jones wrote:[color=blue]
> The post was spam.[/color]

I think you are the only person who has responded who actually thinks
that. It doesn't even meet your second definition of spam.

"Infant Newbie" <infant@newbie.new> wrote in message
news:f38n61$t3d$1@news.freedom2surf.net[color=blue]
> Because the website, which might change, is not up yet !
> At the moment, we have a couple of servers up and we are
> testing and configuring stuff. Hopefully, you will
> appreciate our effort to get things right on day 1.[/color]

Ah. Not only top posting, but a meaningless reply. If you'd waited until
you had a website up before posting at all, plus if you'd posted with a
valid/sensible name (what on earth do you think "Infant Newbie" sounds
like to a potential customer..?) then you *might* just have interested me.

I don't propose to continue this, I'm obviously banging my head against a
wall, it's starting to hurt.

Ivor