UKVoIPTalk.com

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 08:20:28 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>: :
>: : No it isn't. Its the same as other VOIP companies.
>
>Please cite proof.
>
>Ivor[/color]


Im not doing your work for you. I checked before I signed up to Skype
and the prices were all comparable. I chose Skype due to relatives
being all over the world and the damned easy setup, pkus the clarity
of calls and video
You check the prices and you will find Skype the same or similar to
all other VOIP companies

On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:19:36 +0000, alexd <troffasky@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>You can't seriously be suggesting that is 'the same', although your
>sobriquet is 'ignore the facts', so who knows.
>[/color]

For most standard calls it is the same or similar
[color=blue]
>And a little addendum, Skype will wipe any SkypeOut credit you buy if you
>don't use the service often enough, a 'feature' that Sipgate fortunately
>haven't adopted.[/color]

Ahhhhh diddums

"Skype Credit remains active for 180 days after your last use of a
product or feature that uses credit. So making a single call, or
sending a single SMS will make sure your Skype Credit is active for a
further 180 days."


180 days of not making phone calls? whats the point of having it if
you dont use it.

I remember someone here saying that the reason most people here dont
like it is because it isnt 'techie' or 'nurdy' enough. You cant play
with it.
It works for most peoples uses, and works well

On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 08:21:39 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>
>Your spelling is somewhat suspect, along with your argument.
>
>Ivor[/color]

Well, when your only answer is to criticise peoples spelling, youve
obviously lost.

ITF wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:19:36 +0000, alexd <troffasky@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>>You can't seriously be suggesting that is 'the same', although your
>>sobriquet is 'ignore the facts', so who knows.
>>[/color]
>
> For most standard calls it is the same or similar[/color]

What is a 'standard' call?

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
09:02:12 up 7 days, 1:47, 2 users, load average: 0.14, 0.12, 0.09
50,000 watts of funking power

[email]mymail@hotmail.co.uk[/email] wrote:[color=blue]
> On Wed, 7 Nov 2007 23:25:55 -0000, Jon <spam@jonparker.plus.com>
> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>> A few days ago on uk.t.m Ivor was complaining at having to complete a
>> GPRS connection using a mobile phone in order to auto-update the date
>> and time, an operation which would have cost less than 1p.[/color]
>
> Ivor does not like to pay for any telephone calls Jon and seems to
> think that the worst voip provider on the planet is bloody marvelous
> because it gives out phone numbers for free and masquerades has a UK
> based company by having a UK web address .[/color]
[url]www.microsoft.co.uk[/url]
[url]www.aol.co.uk[/url]
[url]www.google.co.uk[/url]
[url]www.boeing.co.uk[/url]

I could go on........

Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:[color=blue]
> (As an aside, does anyone else think the domain "uk.com" is slightly
> daft..? a UK business..?)[/color]

This is one perspective:

A good number of years ago, the .UK domain was controlled by JaNET,
which charged approximately £200pa for commercial entities. (That was
once they'd decided commercial entities could even register, and also
once they'd ackowledged that IP could coexist alongside the Coloured Book
protocols.) At the time, registration in .COM and .ORG was free, so I
attempted to register UK.ORG, and I know others tried to get UK.COM,
etc, but these were blocked by the .ORG and .COM registrars on the
advice of JaNET. Eventually this "advice" (commercial monopoly?) was
overturned and the next people to think of this idea were successful
in registering the domains. Since they charged considerably less than
£200pa the overall price of UK domains plumetted.

The rest is history.

Chris

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:02:36 +0000, alexd <troffasky@hotmail.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>ITF wrote:
>[color=green]
>> On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:19:36 +0000, alexd <troffasky@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>>You can't seriously be suggesting that is 'the same', although your
>>>sobriquet is 'ignore the facts', so who knows.
>>>[/color]
>>
>> For most standard calls it is the same or similar[/color]
>
>What is a 'standard' call?[/color]

Oh Im sorry. Your a Gradwell type person.
How's aRse BTW

In article <4q1e05xfso.ln2@news.roaima.co.uk>,
Chris Davies <chris@roaima.co.uk> wrote:[color=blue]
>Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:[color=green]
>> (As an aside, does anyone else think the domain "uk.com" is slightly
>> daft..? a UK business..?)[/color]
>
>This is one perspective:
>
>A good number of years ago, the .UK domain was controlled by JaNET,
>which charged approximately £200pa for commercial entities. (That was
>once they'd decided commercial entities could even register, and also
>once they'd ackowledged that IP could coexist alongside the Coloured Book
>protocols.) At the time, registration in .COM and .ORG was free, so I
>attempted to register UK.ORG, and I know others tried to get UK.COM,
>etc, but these were blocked by the .ORG and .COM registrars on the
>advice of JaNET. Eventually this "advice" (commercial monopoly?) was
>overturned and the next people to think of this idea were successful
>in registering the domains. Since they charged considerably less than
>£200pa the overall price of UK domains plumetted.[/color]

Plummeted to zero as far as I recall - there was the naming committee
made up of (unelected) staff members of the various ISPs at the time. I
was on it in it's last year or 2 .. Quite a fun time, as people tried to
sneak through the odd personal domain name which were frowned upon at
the time (although I did manage to get one through for a friend ;-)

Then it all went commercial, prices started highish but quickly
plummeted (for members anyway) and I remember the mutterings being made
when uk.com got off the ground too! All fun stuff...

Potted history on [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominet_UK[/url]

Gordon (Bring back .gb :) Henderson

ITF wrote:
[color=blue]
> On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:02:36 +0000, alexd <troffasky@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>ITF wrote:
>>[/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> For most standard calls it is the same or similar[/color]
>>
>>What is a 'standard' call?[/color]
>
> Oh Im sorry. Your a Gradwell type person.
> How's aRse BTW[/color]

Would anybody be so kind as to translate this for me?

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
14:50:03 up 7 days, 7:34, 2 users, load average: 0.09, 0.12, 0.11
50,000 watts of funking power

"ITF" <ignorethefacts-entirely@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
message news:iu48j3t9hujrd060g5p9hpv3efjdn0ck65@4ax.com
: : On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 08:19:46 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
: : <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
: :
: : :
: : :
: : : "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
: :
: : Wrong again
: : What I said was
: : "On the contrary it is similar to most other VOIP
: : companies"

Which is plainly untrue.

QED.

Ivor