UKVoIPTalk.com

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 08:18:29 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:

[color=blue]
>(b) They do not masquerade as a UK based company, nothing on their site
>says this, the contact details page clearly states where they are based.[/color]

Do they or do they not have a web address ending in co.UK that tells
me or should tell me and everyone else that they are a uk based
company one should not have to waste bandwidth and time loading the
site to find out otherwise .

<mymail@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:24r5j3l5v3m888ue9d76fo0mlm26vna21e@4ax.com
: : On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 08:18:29 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
: : <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
: :
: :
: : : (b) They do not masquerade as a UK based company,
: : : nothing on their site says this, the contact details
: : : page clearly states where they are based.
: :
: : Do they or do they not have a web address ending in
: : co.UK that tells me or should tell me and everyone else
: : that they are a uk based company one should not have to
: : waste bandwidth and time loading the site to find out
: : otherwise .

Yes they have a .co.uk site but it clearly states on the contact page
where they are. Or don't you think the contact page is a good place to
look when you want to find out how to contact them..?

Plenty of UK companies have a .com address also, which implies they are in
the USA, or is that ok..?

Ivor

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 08:01:52 +0000, ITF
<ignorethefacts-entirely@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 17:30:21 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
><ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>"ITF" <ignorethefacts-entirely@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>>message news:mme3j39lr90has92igcvpqt8aoi7gknj9f@4ax.com
>>: : On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:45:29 GMT, "{{{{{Welcome}}}}}"
>>: : <bhx_spam@trapped__hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>: : : It's usually one avoided due to being one of the
>>: : : dearest VoIP providers along with Skype.
>>: :
>>: : Why do you say Skype is expensive?
>>
>>Erm.. because it is...?[/color]
>
>You ignorance, whilst expected is astounding
>Skype Out is the same and in some cases cheaper than certain VOIP
>setups[/color]
Than 'certain' voip set ups. This may well be correct but users of SIP
services have the option to move to any of the hundreds of competitors
without changing hardware or software. With Skype you have just Skype,
It is a walled garden. The success of Skype is because anyone, with
just basic computer skills, can install it and it works. It does what
it does fairly well. Had the Gizmo project been operational, before
Skype, and given the same publiclity, it most likely would have have
seen Skype off.
Now the new Skype phone is out, at an affordable price, I am sure it
will be a sucess as the majority of Skype users think that Skype is
unique in the provision of over-the-net telephone calls.

Meanwhile, on SIP....
I can ask people at the other side of the world to install Gizmo on
their computer and they can then call direct to my home phone for
free. Alternatively, they can call into their local Sipbroker access
number and call me that way as an alternative to paying for an
international call.
I can call any landline in Australia, untimed, for 4p/call. I can
call many international destinations, for 8p an hour and, of course, I
can call into the many hundreds of SIP providers, for free, via
Sipbroker. No monthly fees involved in any of this. I can call to my
voicemail, from many countries, for the price of a local call.
Similarly I can call other SIP phones, anywhere, from my mobile, or
otherwise, via a local call. I can decide at what time I want to
receive my calls and when they should be directed to voicemail or
another number. I can do callback using my own chosen providers. The
list is endless. However, I do recognise that some of these services
are not easily attainable, by the average 'Joe', so a simpler, but
more expensive, Skype wins out.



---
Remove 'no_spam_' from email address.
---

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 11:18:27 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Yes they have a .co.uk site but it clearly states on the contact page
>where they are. Or don't you think the contact page is a good place to
>look when you want to find out how to contact them..?[/color]

So the contact page is clearly visible before anyone wastes bandwidth
and time loading the site is it ! .[color=blue]
>Plenty of UK companies have a .com address also, which implies they are in
>the USA, or is that ok..?[/color]

I only deal with UK based companies whenever possible and only buy
from companies based within driving distance that allow me to go and
collect any item I wish to buy, can't be bothered wasting a day
waiting in for parcelforce or whoever to deliver an item .

<mymail@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:qm56j31ecioj0mll7nkjbshl2quf4p6dh0@4ax.com
: : On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 11:18:27 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
: : <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
: :
: : : Yes they have a .co.uk site but it clearly states on
: : : the contact page where they are. Or don't you think
: : : the contact page is a good place to look when you
: : : want to find out how to contact them..?
: :
: : So the contact page is clearly visible before anyone
: : wastes bandwidth and time loading the site is it ! .

How long does it take to load a single page..? The link to the contact
page is right there at the bottom of the main screen.

: : : Plenty of UK companies have a .com address also,
: : : which implies they are in the USA, or is that ok..?
: :
: : I only deal with UK based companies whenever possible
: : and only buy from companies based within driving
: : distance that allow me to go and collect any item I
: : wish to buy, can't be bothered wasting a day waiting in
: : for parcelforce or whoever to deliver an item .

That doesn't answer the question as to why you seem to object to companies
outside the UK having a co.uk address but are apparently perfectly happy
for UK based companies to have web addresses that imply they are not in
the UK.

Ivor

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:12:19 +0000, Ivor Jones wrote:[color=blue]
>
> That doesn't answer the question as to why you seem to object to
> companies outside the UK having a co.uk address but are apparently
> perfectly happy for UK based companies to have web addresses that imply
> they are not in the UK.
>[/color]

Having been involved in 'the Web' since before it existed, .com is very
clearly generally taken to mean 'business' or even just generic 'website'
- nothing to do with 'US based'.

..co.uk, however is intended for UK businesses or UK branches of
international businesses.

"PCPaul" <urd3@bitrot.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fNFYi.44195$c_1.19346@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk
: : On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:12:19 +0000, Ivor Jones wrote:
: : :
: : : That doesn't answer the question as to why you seem
: : : to object to companies outside the UK having a co.uk
: : : address but are apparently perfectly happy for UK
: : : based companies to have web addresses that imply they
: : : are not in the UK.
: :
: : Having been involved in 'the Web' since before it
: : existed, .com is very clearly generally taken to mean
: : 'business' or even just generic 'website' - nothing to
: : do with 'US based'.

Hmm, maybe, but why have co.uk at all then..? (As an aside, does anyone
else think the domain "uk.com" is slightly daft..? Surely co.uk indicates
a UK business..?)

: : .co.uk, however is intended for UK businesses or UK
: : branches of international businesses.

And sipgate.co.uk is exactly that, the UK arm of a business based outside
the UK.

Ivor

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:18:35 GMT, PCPaul <urd3@bitrot.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
>On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:12:19 +0000, Ivor Jones wrote:[color=green]
>>
>> That doesn't answer the question as to why you seem to object to
>> companies outside the UK having a co.uk address but are apparently
>> perfectly happy for UK based companies to have web addresses that imply
>> they are not in the UK.
>>[/color]
>
>Having been involved in 'the Web' since before it existed, .com is very
>clearly generally taken to mean 'business' or even just generic 'website'
>- nothing to do with 'US based'.
>
>.co.uk, however is intended for UK businesses or UK branches of
>international businesses.[/color]
Thanks for explaining this to the thick head I could not be bothered
myself .

[email]mymail@hotmail.co.uk[/email] wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 15:18:35 GMT, PCPaul <urd3@bitrot.co.uk> wrote:[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> .co.uk, however is intended for UK businesses or UK branches of
>> international businesses.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Thanks for explaining this to the thick head I could not be bothered
> myself .[/color]

You've managed to quote the key point of PCPaul's post, yet completely fail
to understand it.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
19:29:52 up 6 days, 12:14, 2 users, load average: 0.36, 0.28, 0.16
50,000 watts of funking power

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 08:19:46 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>
>"ITF" <ignorethefacts-entirely@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>message news:2eg5j3hrsjhsheus0ro8r2dvbpb73t94nm@4ax.com
>: : On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 17:31:54 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
>: : <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>: :
>: : :
>: : : On the contrary, it's nothing like any other VoIP
>: : : company, with the possible exception of Vonage.
>: : : Although even Vonage use ATA's, though they are
>: : : locked and therefore to be avoided.
>: : :
>: : : Ivor
>: :
>: : Pricewise, per call there is little difference. Thats
>: : was what the question was
>
>Maybe, but that's not what you said.
>
>Ivor[/color]

Wrong again
What I said was
"On the contrary it is similar to most other VOIP companies"