| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 46:48:36 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,138 |
| Messages: | 111,069 |
On 14/08/2025 09:49, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107jt95$a8br$1@dont-email.me>, at 05:47:17 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
No true enough. But I doubt it was the inability to bill that held it back.Even back in 2003?Historical note: WiFi calling was originally devised to give in-building
coverage on large campuses (mainly in the USA), in around 2003. But they
couldn't find a reliable way to bill for the individual calls, and were
terrified everyone would be calling long distance and leeching away >>>>>>>> revenue, so kicked it into the long grass.
That seems implausible. My phone has wifi calling and the calls are treated
the same as if they were made over the mobile network. In my case that means
that calls to the US, Canada, Mexico and UK are free, anywhere else costs per
minute.
The phone has to log into the carrier's SIP (or whatever) server so they
know who it is.
Yes true WiFi calling (as opposed to some sort of over the top service such
that uses IP) has always been under the control of the mobile operator. >>>>>
But it was, because at the time I was a freelance journalist covering
telecoms issues, and I spoke to the companies concerned.
Probably more of an excuse than a reality. It took another decade or so for >> the proper technical standards to come about. I can see telecoms executives >> getting in a flap about over the top calls, which were starting around that >> time. If anything, WiFi calling has enabled cellular companies to see off
some of the threat of over the top use. What they didnrCOt foresee was the >> collapse in voice calls of any form. Like linear TV, itrCOs only the oldies >> that make voice calls. (Generality alert)
Plenty of people make voice calls but they are on Zoom, Teams or
WhatsApp. After traditional telecoms companies spent millions trying,
and failing, to promote video-phone services.
In message <107k4ar$bt3u$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:47:39 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, boltar@galactica.caprica remarked:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 15:59:41 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wibbled:
In message <107i43p$3tnhn$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:31:37 on Wed, 13 Aug
2025, boltar@galactica.caprica remarked:
App on phone connects to SIP/whatever server run by uni over wifi. Server >>>> connects to phone network or just uses internet to connect to recipient. >>>> Server logs call, server sends bill from uni if required when required. >>>>
THE PHONE COMPANY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!
Of course it bloody does! The phone company from whose number you are
making the wifi call, wants to be paid for their trouble. Especially if
you are making an international call, or to a premium rate number.
The university would pay an overall bill!
What, who, were, when? What's a university got to do with any of this?
Just how hard is this for you to
understand, do you need it written down in crayon??
Its the same bloody principal!
Not if the technology you describe wasn't invented for a decade.
You were refering to technology that existed but wasn't installed
It was installed, but not for long, because of the lack of a viable
billing system. To the <crayon> individual phone-users </crayon>
due to billing considerations. Make your mind up.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 14/08/2025 09:49, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107jt95$a8br$1@dont-email.me>, at 05:47:17 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
No true enough. But I doubt it was the inability to bill that held it back.Even back in 2003?Historical note: WiFi calling was originally devised to give in-building
coverage on large campuses (mainly in the USA), in around 2003. But they
couldn't find a reliable way to bill for the individual calls, and were
terrified everyone would be calling long distance and leeching away >>>>>>>>> revenue, so kicked it into the long grass.
That seems implausible. My phone has wifi calling and the calls are treated
the same as if they were made over the mobile network. In my case that means
that calls to the US, Canada, Mexico and UK are free, anywhere else costs per
minute.
The phone has to log into the carrier's SIP (or whatever) server so they
know who it is.
Yes true WiFi calling (as opposed to some sort of over the top service such
that uses IP) has always been under the control of the mobile operator. >>>>>>
But it was, because at the time I was a freelance journalist covering
telecoms issues, and I spoke to the companies concerned.
Probably more of an excuse than a reality. It took another decade or so for >>> the proper technical standards to come about. I can see telecoms executives >>> getting in a flap about over the top calls, which were starting around that >>> time. If anything, WiFi calling has enabled cellular companies to see off >>> some of the threat of over the top use. What they didnrCOt foresee was the >>> collapse in voice calls of any form. Like linear TV, itrCOs only the oldies >>> that make voice calls. (Generality alert)
Plenty of people make voice calls but they are on Zoom, Teams or
WhatsApp. After traditional telecoms companies spent millions trying,
and failing, to promote video-phone services.
When I want to call a business and/or talk to a human being[1] I generally use a traditional voice call.
[1] DoesnrCOt always work, but maybe wanting to is part of being an oldie.
Sam
The university would pay an overall bill!
What, who, were, when? What's a university got to do with any of this?
Historical note: WiFi calling was originally devised to give in-building coverage on large campuses (mainly in the USA), in around 2003. But they couldn't find a reliable way to bill for the individual calls, and were terrified everyone would be calling long distance and leeching away
revenue, so kicked it into the long grass.
You were refering to technology that existed but wasn't installed
It was installed, but not for long, because of the lack of a viable
billing system. To the <crayon> individual phone-users </crayon>
In message <107k4hk$bul9$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:51:16 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, boltar@galactica.caprica remarked:
I know, I know, it requires a totally out borderline Einstein level of rocket >>science level of comprehension but I'm hoping a lightbulb might finally go >>on over Rolands head.
I think it requires more than a lightbulb to illuminate the totally
confused ideas you have.
--
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107jt95$a8br$1@dont-email.me>, at 05:47:17 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
But it was, because at the time I was a freelance journalist coveringNo true enough. But I doubt it was the inability to bill that held it back. >>Even back in 2003?Historical note: WiFi calling was originally devised to give in-building
coverage on large campuses (mainly in the USA), in around 2003. But they
couldn't find a reliable way to bill for the individual calls, and were >>>>>>> terrified everyone would be calling long distance and leeching away >>>>>>> revenue, so kicked it into the long grass.
That seems implausible. My phone has wifi calling and the calls >>>>>>are treated
the same as if they were made over the mobile network. In my >>>>>>case that means
that calls to the US, Canada, Mexico and UK are free, anywhere >>>>>>else costs per
minute.
The phone has to log into the carrier's SIP (or whatever) server so they >>>>>> know who it is.
Yes true WiFi calling (as opposed to some sort of over the top >>>>>service such
that uses IP) has always been under the control of the mobile operator. >>>>
telecoms issues, and I spoke to the companies concerned.
Probably more of an excuse than a reality.
It took another decade or so for the proper technical standards to come >about.
I can see telecoms executives getting in a flap about over the top
calls, which were starting around that time.
If anything, WiFi calling has
enabled cellular companies to see off some of the threat of over the
top use. What they didnrCOt foresee was the collapse in voice calls of
any form. Like linear TV, itrCOs only the oldies that make voice calls. >(Generality alert)
App on phone connects to SIP/whatever server run by uni over wifi. Server >>>>> connects to phone network or just uses internet to connect to recipient. >>>>> Server logs call, server sends bill from uni if required when required. >>>>>
THE PHONE COMPANY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!
Of course it bloody does! The phone company from whose number you are
making the wifi call, wants to be paid for their trouble. Especially if >>>> you are making an international call, or to a premium rate number.
The university would pay an overall bill!
What, who, were, when? What's a university got to do with any of this?
Just how hard is this for you to
understand, do you need it written down in crayon??
Its the same bloody principal!
Not if the technology you describe wasn't invented for a decade.
You were refering to technology that existed but wasn't installed
It was installed, but not for long, because of the lack of a viable
billing system. To the <crayon> individual phone-users </crayon>
due to billing considerations. Make your mind up.
I donrCOt think any University offered free, unbilled phone calls to its >students, staff and anyone else who happened to be registered to use its >Wi-Fi service.
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 09:38:46 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wibbled:
The university would pay an overall bill!
What, who, were, when? What's a university got to do with any of this?
Do you think its impossible to go back and find your original post? Do you >deny writing the following:
Historical note: WiFi calling was originally devised to give in-building
coverage on large campuses (mainly in the USA), in around 2003. But they
couldn't find a reliable way to bill for the individual calls, and were
terrified everyone would be calling long distance and leeching away
revenue, so kicked it into the long grass.
What campuses were you talking about exactly?
Either you're being deliberately obtuse or you're having one too many
senior moments than is normal for a man your age.
You were refering to technology that existed but wasn't installed
It was installed, but not for long, because of the lack of a viable
billing system. To the <crayon> individual phone-users </crayon>
*sigh* And we go round the circle again.
Your call is important to us. Did you know you can find answers to most >questions on our website? You are caller 38 in the queue. Music. You are >caller 37 in the queue. Music. You are caller..tri tone.
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 09:43:08 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wibbled:
In message <107k4hk$bul9$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:51:16 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, boltar@galactica.caprica remarked:
I know, I know, it requires a totally out borderline Einstein level of rocket
science level of comprehension but I'm hoping a lightbulb might finally go >>>on over Rolands head.
I think it requires more than a lightbulb to illuminate the totally >>confused ideas you have.
If you can't follow/understand the fairly simple concept being discussed
here it really is time for you to retire and go tend your garden. Stay away >from giving any organisation your "advice".
In message <107k9e5$cvpb$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:14:45 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
I donrCOt think any University offered free, unbilled phone calls to its >>students, staff and anyone else who happened to be registered to use its >>Wi-Fi service.App on phone connects to SIP/whatever server run by uni over wifi. Server
Indeed. Boltar-bot has excelled itself, and jumped an entire shiver of >sharks on this one.
In message <107k9qb$d2rn$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:21:15 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, boltar@galactica.caprica remarked:
Historical note: WiFi calling was originally devised to give in-building >>> coverage on large campuses (mainly in the USA), in around 2003. But they >>> couldn't find a reliable way to bill for the individual calls, and were
terrified everyone would be calling long distance and leeching away
revenue, so kicked it into the long grass.
What campuses were you talking about exactly?
The one I had most recently visited in 2003 was Motorola's Austin
equivalent of Microsoft's Redmond. While I was at the former they
chatted about the wifi-calling they were in the process of launching, >because regular mobile phones didn't work more than 50ft inside the >buildings, which they regarded as tad embarrassing.
Either you're being deliberately obtuse or you're having one too many >>senior moments than is normal for a man your age.
A good quote for the second chapter of my book.
It was installed, but not for long, because of the lack of a viable >>>billing system. To the <crayon> individual phone-users </crayon>
*sigh* And we go round the circle again.
You do, because of <reasons>.
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 14/08/2025 09:49, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107jt95$a8br$1@dont-email.me>, at 05:47:17 on Thu, 14 Aug >>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
No true enough. But I doubt it was the inability to bill that held it back.Historical note: WiFi calling was originally devised to give in-building
coverage on large campuses (mainly in the USA), in around 2003. But they
couldn't find a reliable way to bill for the individual calls, and were
terrified everyone would be calling long distance and leeching away >>>>>>>>> revenue, so kicked it into the long grass.
That seems implausible. My phone has wifi calling and the calls are treated
the same as if they were made over the mobile network. In my case that means
that calls to the US, Canada, Mexico and UK are free, anywhere else costs per
minute.
The phone has to log into the carrier's SIP (or whatever) server so they
know who it is.
Yes true WiFi calling (as opposed to some sort of over the top service such
that uses IP) has always been under the control of the mobile operator.
Even back in 2003?
But it was, because at the time I was a freelance journalist covering >>>> telecoms issues, and I spoke to the companies concerned.
Probably more of an excuse than a reality. It took another decade or so for
the proper technical standards to come about. I can see telecoms executives
getting in a flap about over the top calls, which were starting around that
time. If anything, WiFi calling has enabled cellular companies to see off >>> some of the threat of over the top use. What they didnrCOt foresee was the
collapse in voice calls of any form. Like linear TV, itrCOs only the oldies
that make voice calls. (Generality alert)
Plenty of people make voice calls but they are on Zoom, Teams or
WhatsApp. After traditional telecoms companies spent millions trying,
and failing, to promote video-phone services.
When I want to call a business and/or talk to a human being[1] I generally use a traditional voice call.
[1] DoesnrCOt always work, but maybe wanting to is part of being an oldie.
Sam
Your call is important to us. Did you know you can find answers to most questions on our website? You are caller 38 in the queue. Music. You are caller 37 in the queue. Music. You are caller..tri tone.
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 10:58:14 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wibbled:
In message <107k9qb$d2rn$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:21:15 on Thu, 14 Aug >2025, boltar@galactica.caprica remarked:
Historical note: WiFi calling was originally devised to give in-building >>> coverage on large campuses (mainly in the USA), in around 2003. But they >>> couldn't find a reliable way to bill for the individual calls, and were >>> terrified everyone would be calling long distance and leeching away
revenue, so kicked it into the long grass.
What campuses were you talking about exactly?
The one I had most recently visited in 2003 was Motorola's Austin >equivalent of Microsoft's Redmond. While I was at the former they
chatted about the wifi-calling they were in the process of launching, >because regular mobile phones didn't work more than 50ft inside the >buildings, which they regarded as tad embarrassing.
Campus is an americanism wrt companies. Here in the UK we generally call them
an office complex.
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 10:44:14 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wibbled:
In message <107k9e5$cvpb$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:14:45 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
I don|ore4raot think any University offered free, unbilled phone calls to itsApp on phone connects to SIP/whatever server run by uni over >>>>>>>wifi. Server
students, staff and anyone else who happened to be registered to use its >>>Wi-Fi service.
Indeed. Boltar-bot has excelled itself, and jumped an entire shiver of >>sharks on this one.
Says the man who can't understand the concept of a university charging
wifi phone users and in the university itself being billed by the phone >company. Irony, much?
Tell me, when you buy some potatoes in Tesco do you think your money goes >direct into the farmers bank account?
Oh wait, you won't understand that analogy, doesn't fit into your rigid >thinking box.
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 10:58:14 +0100
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wibbled:
In message <107k9qb$d2rn$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:21:15 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, boltar@galactica.caprica remarked:
Historical note: WiFi calling was originally devised to give in-building >>>> coverage on large campuses (mainly in the USA), in around 2003. But they >>>> couldn't find a reliable way to bill for the individual calls, and were >>>> terrified everyone would be calling long distance and leeching away
revenue, so kicked it into the long grass.
What campuses were you talking about exactly?
The one I had most recently visited in 2003 was Motorola's Austin >>equivalent of Microsoft's Redmond. While I was at the former they
chatted about the wifi-calling they were in the process of launching, >>because regular mobile phones didn't work more than 50ft inside the >>buildings, which they regarded as tad embarrassing.
Campus is an americanism wrt companies. Here in the UK we generally call them >an office complex.
Either you're being deliberately obtuse or you're having one too many >>>senior moments than is normal for a man your age.
A good quote for the second chapter of my book.
Will you quote the number of posts it took to explain to you the concept
of chains of payment?
Something most of humanity has grasped probably since
the first market was invented 10K odd years ago. I'm sure your readers would >be amused.
It was installed, but not for long, because of the lack of a viable >>>>billing system. To the <crayon> individual phone-users </crayon>
*sigh* And we go round the circle again.
You do, because of <reasons>.
Thanks for proving my point.
Old industry, like the government, NHS, banking etc still make almost exclusive use of traditional voice calls.
In message <107kcq1$dp0a$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:12:17 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, boltar@galactica.caprica remarked:
Will you quote the number of posts it took to explain to you the concept
of chains of payment?
I might quote the number of posts where you've failed to grasp how "over
the top" billing to individual handset owners using a public wifi
service, works (or doesn't work).
ObRail: I was on an LNER train on Monday and could have used
wifi-calling (modulo the wifi was slower than a very slow thing). Do you >think my SIM provider would have sent a bill [for a call to a premium
rate number, or otherwise] to LNER, and what would LNER then do with it?
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 14/08/2025 09:49, Tweed wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107jt95$a8br$1@dont-email.me>, at 05:47:17 on Thu, 14 Aug >>>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
No true enough. But I doubt it was the inability to bill that held it back.Historical note: WiFi calling was originally devised to give in-building
coverage on large campuses (mainly in the USA), in around 2003. But they
couldn't find a reliable way to bill for the individual calls, and were
terrified everyone would be calling long distance and leeching away >>>>>>>>>> revenue, so kicked it into the long grass.
That seems implausible. My phone has wifi calling and the calls are treated
the same as if they were made over the mobile network. In my case that means
that calls to the US, Canada, Mexico and UK are free, anywhere else costs per
minute.
The phone has to log into the carrier's SIP (or whatever) server so they
know who it is.
Yes true WiFi calling (as opposed to some sort of over the top service such
that uses IP) has always been under the control of the mobile operator.
Even back in 2003?
But it was, because at the time I was a freelance journalist covering >>>>> telecoms issues, and I spoke to the companies concerned.
Probably more of an excuse than a reality. It took another decade or so for
the proper technical standards to come about. I can see telecoms executives
getting in a flap about over the top calls, which were starting around that
time. If anything, WiFi calling has enabled cellular companies to see off >>>> some of the threat of over the top use. What they didnrCOt foresee was the >>>> collapse in voice calls of any form. Like linear TV, itrCOs only the oldies
that make voice calls. (Generality alert)
Plenty of people make voice calls but they are on Zoom, Teams or
WhatsApp. After traditional telecoms companies spent millions trying,
and failing, to promote video-phone services.
When I want to call a business and/or talk to a human being[1] I generally >> use a traditional voice call.
[1] DoesnrCOt always work, but maybe wanting to is part of being an oldie. >>
Sam
Your call is important to us. Did you know you can find answers to most questions on our website? You are caller 38 in the queue. Music. You are caller 37 in the queue. Music. You are caller..tri tone.
On 14/08/2025 10:39, Roland Perry wrote:
Old industry, like the government, NHS, banking etc still make almost >>exclusive use of traditional voice calls.
That will be why virtually all of my interactions with government, NHS
and banks is by message
and the odd, old fashioned letter. The exception is phone consultations
with doctors, generally after an exchange of messages.
I literally can't remember when I spoke to any government department or >agency on the phone.
Just as well as you can apparently never get through anyway.
Ob. UKR, I will be phoning LNER about a missing refund shortly.
In message <107k7vk$clv3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:49:56 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107jt95$a8br$1@dont-email.me>, at 05:47:17 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
No true enough. But I doubt it was the inability to bill that held it back.Even back in 2003?Historical note: WiFi calling was originally devised to give in-building
coverage on large campuses (mainly in the USA), in around 2003. But they
couldn't find a reliable way to bill for the individual calls, and were
terrified everyone would be calling long distance and leeching away >>>>>>>> revenue, so kicked it into the long grass.
That seems implausible. My phone has wifi calling and the calls >>>>>>> are treated
the same as if they were made over the mobile network. In my
case that means
that calls to the US, Canada, Mexico and UK are free, anywhere
else costs per
minute.
The phone has to log into the carrier's SIP (or whatever) server so they
know who it is.
Yes true WiFi calling (as opposed to some sort of over the top
service such
that uses IP) has always been under the control of the mobile operator. >>>>>
But it was, because at the time I was a freelance journalist covering
telecoms issues, and I spoke to the companies concerned.
Probably more of an excuse than a reality.
It wasn't an excuse - why don't you believe me? I had previously worked
with a network provider and almost all the reasons why products (fully technically working) didn't get launched was "because we can't find a
way to bill for it".
It took another decade or so for the proper technical standards to come
about.
They would help with interoperability, but in 2003 a proprietary scheme could have been invoked, as long as it was reliable.
I can see telecoms executives getting in a flap about over the top
calls, which were starting around that time.
Do you mean things like Skype? The stuff I've been discussing is calls
to and from real phone numbers (either mobile or landline).
If anything, WiFi calling has
20yrs later
enabled cellular companies to see off some of the threat of over the
top use. What they didnrCOt foresee was the collapse in voice calls of
any form. Like linear TV, itrCOs only the oldies that make voice calls.
(Generality alert)
Old industry, like the government, NHS, banking etc still make almost exclusive use of traditional voice calls.
In message <107keki$e3np$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:43:30 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 14/08/2025 10:39, Roland Perry wrote:
Old industry, like the government, NHS, banking etc still make almost
exclusive use of traditional voice calls.
That will be why virtually all of my interactions with government, NHS
and banks is by message
Using which platform? I've not yet encountered my taxman embracing
WhatsApp or Facebook messenger, for example.
It was installed, but not for long, because of the lack of a viable
billing system. To the <crayon> individual phone-users </crayon>
Yes true WiFi calling (as opposed to some sort of over the top service such >>that uses IP) has always been under the control of the mobile operator.
Even back in 2003?
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107k7vk$clv3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:49:56 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107jt95$a8br$1@dont-email.me>, at 05:47:17 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Historical note: WiFi calling was originally devised to give >>>>>>>>>in-building
coverage on large campuses (mainly in the USA), in around >>>>>>>>>2003. But they
couldn't find a reliable way to bill for the individual calls, >>>>>>>>>and were
terrified everyone would be calling long distance and leeching away >>>>>>>>> revenue, so kicked it into the long grass.
That seems implausible. My phone has wifi calling and the
are treated the same as if they were made over the mobile >>>>>>>>network. In my case that means that calls to the US, Canada, >>>>>>>>Mexico and UK are free, anywhere else costs per minute.
The phone has to log into the carrier's SIP (or whatever) >>>>>>>>server so they know who it is.
No true enough. But I doubt it was the inability to bill that held >>>>>it back.Yes true WiFi calling (as opposed to some sort of over the top >>>>>>>service such that uses IP) has always been under the control of >>>>>>>the mobile operator.
Even back in 2003?
But it was, because at the time I was a freelance journalist covering
telecoms issues, and I spoke to the companies concerned.
Probably more of an excuse than a reality.
It wasn't an excuse - why don't you believe me? I had previously worked
with a network provider and almost all the reasons why products (fully
technically working) didn't get launched was "because we can't find a
way to bill for it".
It took another decade or so for the proper technical standards to come
about.
They would help with interoperability, but in 2003 a proprietary scheme
could have been invoked, as long as it was reliable.
I can see telecoms executives getting in a flap about over the top
calls, which were starting around that time.
Do you mean things like Skype? The stuff I've been discussing is calls
to and from real phone numbers (either mobile or landline).
If anything, WiFi calling has
20yrs later
enabled cellular companies to see off some of the threat of over the
top use. What they didnrCOt foresee was the collapse in voice calls of
any form. Like linear TV, itrCOs only the oldies that make voice calls.
(Generality alert)
Old industry, like the government, NHS, banking etc still make almost
exclusive use of traditional voice calls.
I find it difficult to believe the billing story,
because if the calling via WiFi is controlled by a proprietary telco >developed technology they can easily develop the billing as well.
The original Vodafone femto cells of
about that era (2009)
that plugged into your home Ethernet managed to bill you just fine. If
you control the call (and it was all circuit switched then) you can
control the billing.
On 14/08/2025 14:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <107keki$e3np$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:43:30 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 14/08/2025 10:39, Roland Perry wrote:
Old industry, like the government, NHS, banking etc still make almost >>>> exclusive use of traditional voice calls.
That will be why virtually all of my interactions with government, NHS
and banks is by message
Using which platform? I've not yet encountered my taxman embracing
WhatsApp or Facebook messenger, for example.
Good old-fashioned email.
According to Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>:
It was installed, but not for long, because of the lack of a viable
billing system. To the <crayon> individual phone-users </crayon>
So just so I understand better ...
I have been using SIP telephony for quite a while. Every SIP phone or
mobile softphone app I have ever used has to be configured to talk to
a specific server with an account (often but not always the phone
number) and a password. No matter where I physically go, that SIP
server is where my calls connect to and from the phone system,
and to the extent the calls need to be billed, I have an account
so they know who I am and where to send the bill.
This sounds more like DHCP. A random device connects to the network
and something on that network says here's the connection details. The
device has no other relationship to the network and if they want to
know who you are, they force your browser to a login page before they
let you do anything else.
If that's how it worked without the equivalent of the login page, no
wonder it failed. What were they thinking? I suppose they could have
given everyone a billing code you had to dial or perhaps configure
into an app, but in a world of password sharing students, good luck
with that.
On 14/08/2025 14:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <107keki$e3np$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:43:30 on Thu, 14 Aug >>2025, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 14/08/2025 10:39, Roland Perry wrote:
Old industry, like the government, NHS, banking etc still make
almost exclusive use of traditional voice calls.
That will be why virtually all of my interactions with government,
NHS and banks is by message
Using which platform? I've not yet encountered my taxman embracing >>WhatsApp or Facebook messenger, for example.
Good old-fashioned email.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 14/08/2025 14:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <107keki$e3np$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:43:30 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 14/08/2025 10:39, Roland Perry wrote:
Old industry, like the government, NHS, banking etc still make almost >>>>> exclusive use of traditional voice calls.
That will be why virtually all of my interactions with government, NHS >>>> and banks is by message
Using which platform? I've not yet encountered my taxman embracing
WhatsApp or Facebook messenger, for example.
Good old-fashioned email.
My GP has email, but:
rCLFor confidentiality reasons please note that no medical correspondence or requests for appointments or prescriptions can be accepted through the Practice email address.rCY
IrCOm trying hard to think what interactions I have with my GP that that doesnrCOt cover.
In message <107kq46$h36g$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:59:34 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107k7vk$clv3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:49:56 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107jt95$a8br$1@dont-email.me>, at 05:47:17 on Thu, 14 Aug >>>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Historical note: WiFi calling was originally devised to give >>>>>>>>>> in-building
coverage on large campuses (mainly in the USA), in around >>>>>>>>>> 2003. But they
couldn't find a reliable way to bill for the individual calls, >>>>>>>>>> and were
terrified everyone would be calling long distance and leeching away >>>>>>>>>> revenue, so kicked it into the long grass.
That seems implausible. My phone has wifi calling and the
are treated the same as if they were made over the mobile
network. In my case that means that calls to the US, Canada, >>>>>>>>> Mexico and UK are free, anywhere else costs per minute.
The phone has to log into the carrier's SIP (or whatever)
server so they know who it is.
No true enough. But I doubt it was the inability to bill that held >>>>>> it back.Yes true WiFi calling (as opposed to some sort of over the top >>>>>>>> service such that uses IP) has always been under the control of >>>>>>>> the mobile operator.
Even back in 2003?
But it was, because at the time I was a freelance journalist covering >>>>> telecoms issues, and I spoke to the companies concerned.
Probably more of an excuse than a reality.
It wasn't an excuse - why don't you believe me? I had previously worked
with a network provider and almost all the reasons why products (fully
technically working) didn't get launched was "because we can't find a
way to bill for it".
It took another decade or so for the proper technical standards to come >>>> about.
They would help with interoperability, but in 2003 a proprietary scheme
could have been invoked, as long as it was reliable.
I can see telecoms executives getting in a flap about over the top
calls, which were starting around that time.
Do you mean things like Skype? The stuff I've been discussing is calls
to and from real phone numbers (either mobile or landline).
If anything, WiFi calling has
20yrs later
enabled cellular companies to see off some of the threat of over the
top use. What they didnrCOt foresee was the collapse in voice calls of >>>> any form. Like linear TV, itrCOs only the oldies that make voice calls. >>>> (Generality alert)
Old industry, like the government, NHS, banking etc still make almost
exclusive use of traditional voice calls.
I find it difficult to believe the billing story,
Your difficulty is not my problem.
because if the calling via WiFi is controlled by a proprietary telco
developed technology they can easily develop the billing as well.
Not if the people in the billing department don't have sufficient enthusiasm.
The original Vodafone femto cells of
about that era (2009)
2003 is 25 Internet-years before then.
that plugged into your home Ethernet managed to bill you just fine. If
you control the call (and it was all circuit switched then) you can
control the billing.
Only if someone writes the middleware.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107k7vk$clv3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:49:56 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107jt95$a8br$1@dont-email.me>, at 05:47:17 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
No true enough. But I doubt it was the inability to bill that held it back.Even back in 2003?Historical note: WiFi calling was originally devised to give in-building
coverage on large campuses (mainly in the USA), in around 2003. But they
couldn't find a reliable way to bill for the individual calls, and were
terrified everyone would be calling long distance and leeching away >>>>>>>>> revenue, so kicked it into the long grass.
That seems implausible. My phone has wifi calling and the calls >>>>>>>> are treated
the same as if they were made over the mobile network. In my >>>>>>>> case that means
that calls to the US, Canada, Mexico and UK are free, anywhere >>>>>>>> else costs per
minute.
The phone has to log into the carrier's SIP (or whatever) server so they
know who it is.
Yes true WiFi calling (as opposed to some sort of over the top
service such
that uses IP) has always been under the control of the mobile operator. >>>>>>
But it was, because at the time I was a freelance journalist covering
telecoms issues, and I spoke to the companies concerned.
Probably more of an excuse than a reality.
It wasn't an excuse - why don't you believe me? I had previously worked
with a network provider and almost all the reasons why products (fully
technically working) didn't get launched was "because we can't find a
way to bill for it".
It took another decade or so for the proper technical standards to come >>> about.
They would help with interoperability, but in 2003 a proprietary scheme
could have been invoked, as long as it was reliable.
I can see telecoms executives getting in a flap about over the top
calls, which were starting around that time.
Do you mean things like Skype? The stuff I've been discussing is calls
to and from real phone numbers (either mobile or landline).
If anything, WiFi calling has
20yrs later
enabled cellular companies to see off some of the threat of over the
top use. What they didnrCOt foresee was the collapse in voice calls of
any form. Like linear TV, itrCOs only the oldies that make voice calls. >>> (Generality alert)
Old industry, like the government, NHS, banking etc still make almost
exclusive use of traditional voice calls.
I find it difficult to believe the billing story, because if the calling
via WiFi is controlled by a proprietary telco developed technology they can easily develop the billing as well. The original Vodafone femto cells of about that era (2009) that plugged into your home Ethernet managed to bill you just fine. If you control the call (and it was all circuit switched
then) you can control the billing.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107k7vk$clv3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:49:56 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107jt95$a8br$1@dont-email.me>, at 05:47:17 on Thu, 14 Aug >>>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
No true enough. But I doubt it was the inability to bill that held it back.Historical note: WiFi calling was originally devised to give in-building
coverage on large campuses (mainly in the USA), in around 2003. But they
couldn't find a reliable way to bill for the individual calls, and were
terrified everyone would be calling long distance and leeching away >>>>>>>>>> revenue, so kicked it into the long grass.
That seems implausible. My phone has wifi calling and the calls >>>>>>>>> are treated
the same as if they were made over the mobile network. In my >>>>>>>>> case that means
that calls to the US, Canada, Mexico and UK are free, anywhere >>>>>>>>> else costs per
minute.
The phone has to log into the carrier's SIP (or whatever) server so they
know who it is.
Yes true WiFi calling (as opposed to some sort of over the top >>>>>>>> service such
that uses IP) has always been under the control of the mobile operator.
Even back in 2003?
But it was, because at the time I was a freelance journalist covering >>>>> telecoms issues, and I spoke to the companies concerned.
Probably more of an excuse than a reality.
It wasn't an excuse - why don't you believe me? I had previously worked >>> with a network provider and almost all the reasons why products (fully
technically working) didn't get launched was "because we can't find a
way to bill for it".
It took another decade or so for the proper technical standards to come >>>> about.
They would help with interoperability, but in 2003 a proprietary scheme >>> could have been invoked, as long as it was reliable.
I can see telecoms executives getting in a flap about over the top
calls, which were starting around that time.
Do you mean things like Skype? The stuff I've been discussing is calls
to and from real phone numbers (either mobile or landline).
If anything, WiFi calling has
20yrs later
enabled cellular companies to see off some of the threat of over the
top use. What they didnrCOt foresee was the collapse in voice calls of >>>> any form. Like linear TV, itrCOs only the oldies that make voice calls. >>>> (Generality alert)
Old industry, like the government, NHS, banking etc still make almost
exclusive use of traditional voice calls.
I find it difficult to believe the billing story, because if the calling
via WiFi is controlled by a proprietary telco developed technology they can >> easily develop the billing as well. The original Vodafone femto cells of
about that era (2009) that plugged into your home Ethernet managed to bill >> you just fine. If you control the call (and it was all circuit switched
then) you can control the billing.
I hesitate to join this shouting match, but it raises a query in my mind:
Suppose IrCOm on a ship, much too far from land to get any phone signal. But the ship has decent Musklink WiFi, so would I be able to make WiFi calls using my mobile phone? Where would my phone company think IrCOm calling from, and bill the call as if I was there? And would there be too much latency on the line to hold a normal conversation?
Suppose IrCOm on a ship, much too far from land to get any phone signal. But >the ship has decent Musklink WiFi, so would I be able to make WiFi calls >using my mobile phone? Where would my phone company think IrCOm calling >from, and bill the call as if I was there? And would there be too much >latency on the line to hold a normal conversation?
In message <107kssk$htv1$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:46:44 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 14/08/2025 14:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <107keki$e3np$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:43:30 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 14/08/2025 10:39, Roland Perry wrote:
Old industry, like the government, NHS, banking etc still make
almost exclusive use of traditional voice calls.
That will be why virtually all of my interactions with government,
NHS and banks is by message
Using which platform? I've not yet encountered my taxman embracing
WhatsApp or Facebook messenger, for example.
Good old-fashioned email.
I've not had an email from a bank that said anything other than "log
into our website" for decades. My taxman doesn't reply to emails, and
most of my NHS stuff arrives by SMS.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107k7vk$clv3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:49:56 on Thu, 14 Aug >>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107jt95$a8br$1@dont-email.me>, at 05:47:17 on Thu, 14 Aug >>>>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
No true enough. But I doubt it was the inability to bill that held it back.Historical note: WiFi calling was originally devised to give in-building
coverage on large campuses (mainly in the USA), in around 2003. But they
couldn't find a reliable way to bill for the individual calls, and were
terrified everyone would be calling long distance and leeching away >>>>>>>>>>> revenue, so kicked it into the long grass.
That seems implausible. My phone has wifi calling and the calls >>>>>>>>>> are treated
the same as if they were made over the mobile network. In my >>>>>>>>>> case that means
that calls to the US, Canada, Mexico and UK are free, anywhere >>>>>>>>>> else costs per
minute.
The phone has to log into the carrier's SIP (or whatever) server so they
know who it is.
Yes true WiFi calling (as opposed to some sort of over the top >>>>>>>>> service such
that uses IP) has always been under the control of the mobile operator.
Even back in 2003?
But it was, because at the time I was a freelance journalist covering >>>>>> telecoms issues, and I spoke to the companies concerned.
Probably more of an excuse than a reality.
It wasn't an excuse - why don't you believe me? I had previously worked >>>> with a network provider and almost all the reasons why products (fully >>>> technically working) didn't get launched was "because we can't find a >>>> way to bill for it".
It took another decade or so for the proper technical standards to come >>>>> about.
They would help with interoperability, but in 2003 a proprietary scheme >>>> could have been invoked, as long as it was reliable.
I can see telecoms executives getting in a flap about over the top
calls, which were starting around that time.
Do you mean things like Skype? The stuff I've been discussing is calls >>>> to and from real phone numbers (either mobile or landline).
If anything, WiFi calling has
20yrs later
enabled cellular companies to see off some of the threat of over the >>>>> top use. What they didnrCOt foresee was the collapse in voice calls of >>>>> any form. Like linear TV, itrCOs only the oldies that make voice calls. >>>>> (Generality alert)
Old industry, like the government, NHS, banking etc still make almost >>>> exclusive use of traditional voice calls.
I find it difficult to believe the billing story, because if the calling >>> via WiFi is controlled by a proprietary telco developed technology they can >>> easily develop the billing as well. The original Vodafone femto cells of >>> about that era (2009) that plugged into your home Ethernet managed to bill >>> you just fine. If you control the call (and it was all circuit switched
then) you can control the billing.
I hesitate to join this shouting match, but it raises a query in my mind:
Suppose IrCOm on a ship, much too far from land to get any phone signal. But >> the ship has decent Musklink WiFi, so would I be able to make WiFi calls
using my mobile phone? Where would my phone company think IrCOm calling
from, and bill the call as if I was there? And would there be too much
latency on the line to hold a normal conversation?
Not with Vodafone. They disable WiFi calling when overseas. Presumably it >breaks commercial agreements with roaming partners.
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 17:13:29 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107k7vk$clv3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:49:56 on Thu, 14 Aug >>>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107jt95$a8br$1@dont-email.me>, at 05:47:17 on Thu, 14 Aug >>>>>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
No true enough. But I doubt it was the inability to bill that held it back.Historical note: WiFi calling was originally devised to give in-building
coverage on large campuses (mainly in the USA), in around 2003. But they
couldn't find a reliable way to bill for the individual calls, and were
terrified everyone would be calling long distance and leeching away
revenue, so kicked it into the long grass.
That seems implausible. My phone has wifi calling and the calls >>>>>>>>>>> are treated
the same as if they were made over the mobile network. In my >>>>>>>>>>> case that means
that calls to the US, Canada, Mexico and UK are free, anywhere >>>>>>>>>>> else costs per
minute.
The phone has to log into the carrier's SIP (or whatever) server so they
know who it is.
Yes true WiFi calling (as opposed to some sort of over the top >>>>>>>>>> service such
that uses IP) has always been under the control of the mobile operator.
Even back in 2003?
But it was, because at the time I was a freelance journalist covering >>>>>>> telecoms issues, and I spoke to the companies concerned.
Probably more of an excuse than a reality.
It wasn't an excuse - why don't you believe me? I had previously worked >>>>> with a network provider and almost all the reasons why products (fully >>>>> technically working) didn't get launched was "because we can't find a >>>>> way to bill for it".
It took another decade or so for the proper technical standards to come >>>>>> about.
They would help with interoperability, but in 2003 a proprietary scheme >>>>> could have been invoked, as long as it was reliable.
I can see telecoms executives getting in a flap about over the top >>>>>> calls, which were starting around that time.
Do you mean things like Skype? The stuff I've been discussing is calls >>>>> to and from real phone numbers (either mobile or landline).
If anything, WiFi calling has
20yrs later
enabled cellular companies to see off some of the threat of over the >>>>>> top use. What they didnrCOt foresee was the collapse in voice calls of >>>>>> any form. Like linear TV, itrCOs only the oldies that make voice calls. >>>>>> (Generality alert)
Old industry, like the government, NHS, banking etc still make almost >>>>> exclusive use of traditional voice calls.
I find it difficult to believe the billing story, because if the calling >>>> via WiFi is controlled by a proprietary telco developed technology they can
easily develop the billing as well. The original Vodafone femto cells of >>>> about that era (2009) that plugged into your home Ethernet managed to bill >>>> you just fine. If you control the call (and it was all circuit switched >>>> then) you can control the billing.
I hesitate to join this shouting match, but it raises a query in my mind: >>>
Suppose IrCOm on a ship, much too far from land to get any phone signal. But
the ship has decent Musklink WiFi, so would I be able to make WiFi calls >>> using my mobile phone? Where would my phone company think IrCOm calling >>> from, and bill the call as if I was there? And would there be too much
latency on the line to hold a normal conversation?
Not with Vodafone. They disable WiFi calling when overseas. Presumably it
breaks commercial agreements with roaming partners.
Ah, I've never tried it. I'm on O2, and will try to remember to try it
next time I'm at sea (in about six months).
But, how does the phone know it's overseas if it's not receiving any phone signals?
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 17:13:29 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107k7vk$clv3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:49:56 on Thu, 14 Aug >>>>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107jt95$a8br$1@dont-email.me>, at 05:47:17 on Thu, 14 Aug >>>>>>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
No true enough. But I doubt it was the inability to bill that held it back.Historical note: WiFi calling was originally devised to give in-building
coverage on large campuses (mainly in the USA), in around 2003. But they
couldn't find a reliable way to bill for the individual calls, and were
terrified everyone would be calling long distance and leeching away
revenue, so kicked it into the long grass.
That seems implausible. My phone has wifi calling and the calls >>>>>>>>>>>> are treated
the same as if they were made over the mobile network. In my >>>>>>>>>>>> case that means
that calls to the US, Canada, Mexico and UK are free, anywhere >>>>>>>>>>>> else costs per
minute.
The phone has to log into the carrier's SIP (or whatever) server so they
know who it is.
Yes true WiFi calling (as opposed to some sort of over the top >>>>>>>>>>> service such
that uses IP) has always been under the control of the mobile operator.
Even back in 2003?
But it was, because at the time I was a freelance journalist covering >>>>>>>> telecoms issues, and I spoke to the companies concerned.
Probably more of an excuse than a reality.
It wasn't an excuse - why don't you believe me? I had previously worked >>>>>> with a network provider and almost all the reasons why products (fully >>>>>> technically working) didn't get launched was "because we can't find a >>>>>> way to bill for it".
It took another decade or so for the proper technical standards to come
about.
They would help with interoperability, but in 2003 a proprietary scheme >>>>>> could have been invoked, as long as it was reliable.
I can see telecoms executives getting in a flap about over the top >>>>>>> calls, which were starting around that time.
Do you mean things like Skype? The stuff I've been discussing is calls >>>>>> to and from real phone numbers (either mobile or landline).
If anything, WiFi calling has
20yrs later
enabled cellular companies to see off some of the threat of over the >>>>>>> top use. What they didnrCOt foresee was the collapse in voice calls of >>>>>>> any form. Like linear TV, itrCOs only the oldies that make voice calls.
(Generality alert)
Old industry, like the government, NHS, banking etc still make almost >>>>>> exclusive use of traditional voice calls.
I find it difficult to believe the billing story, because if the calling >>>>> via WiFi is controlled by a proprietary telco developed technology they can
easily develop the billing as well. The original Vodafone femto cells of >>>>> about that era (2009) that plugged into your home Ethernet managed to bill
you just fine. If you control the call (and it was all circuit switched >>>>> then) you can control the billing.
I hesitate to join this shouting match, but it raises a query in my mind: >>>>
Suppose IrCOm on a ship, much too far from land to get any phone signal. But
the ship has decent Musklink WiFi, so would I be able to make WiFi calls >>>> using my mobile phone? Where would my phone company think IrCOm calling >>>> from, and bill the call as if I was there? And would there be too much >>>> latency on the line to hold a normal conversation?
Not with Vodafone. They disable WiFi calling when overseas. Presumably it >>> breaks commercial agreements with roaming partners.
Ah, I've never tried it. I'm on O2, and will try to remember to try it
next time I'm at sea (in about six months).
But, how does the phone know it's overseas if it's not receiving any phone signals?
It will be using a geolocated IP address via its WiFi connection.
Starlink,
for example, goes to great lengths to geolocate the public IP address of
its users.
According to Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
Suppose IrCOm on a ship, much too far from land to get any phone signal. But >> the ship has decent Musklink WiFi, so would I be able to make WiFi calls
using my mobile phone? Where would my phone company think IrCOm calling
from, and bill the call as if I was there? And would there be too much
latency on the line to hold a normal conversation?
Starlink's latecy is about 50ms which is fine for VoIP.
Your phone would connect over the WiFi to your mobile provider's
VoIP server so I expect your call would appear to be coming from
the UK.
You pay the ship whatever you pay for the ship wifi,
you pay your mobile carrier whatever you usually pay for a call,
probably nothing if the call is in your monthly minute bundle.
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 20:13:43 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 17:13:29 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107k7vk$clv3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:49:56 on Thu, 14 Aug >>>>>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107jt95$a8br$1@dont-email.me>, at 05:47:17 on Thu, 14 Aug >>>>>>>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
No true enough. But I doubt it was the inability to bill that held it back.Historical note: WiFi calling was originally devised to give in-building
coverage on large campuses (mainly in the USA), in around 2003. But they
couldn't find a reliable way to bill for the individual calls, and were
terrified everyone would be calling long distance and leeching away
revenue, so kicked it into the long grass.
That seems implausible. My phone has wifi calling and the calls >>>>>>>>>>>>> are treated
the same as if they were made over the mobile network. In my >>>>>>>>>>>>> case that means
that calls to the US, Canada, Mexico and UK are free, anywhere >>>>>>>>>>>>> else costs per
minute.
The phone has to log into the carrier's SIP (or whatever) server so they
know who it is.
Yes true WiFi calling (as opposed to some sort of over the top >>>>>>>>>>>> service such
that uses IP) has always been under the control of the mobile operator.
Even back in 2003?
But it was, because at the time I was a freelance journalist covering >>>>>>>>> telecoms issues, and I spoke to the companies concerned.
Probably more of an excuse than a reality.
It wasn't an excuse - why don't you believe me? I had previously worked
with a network provider and almost all the reasons why products (fully >>>>>>> technically working) didn't get launched was "because we can't find a >>>>>>> way to bill for it".
It took another decade or so for the proper technical standards to come
about.
They would help with interoperability, but in 2003 a proprietary scheme
could have been invoked, as long as it was reliable.
I can see telecoms executives getting in a flap about over the top >>>>>>>> calls, which were starting around that time.
Do you mean things like Skype? The stuff I've been discussing is calls >>>>>>> to and from real phone numbers (either mobile or landline).
If anything, WiFi calling has
20yrs later
enabled cellular companies to see off some of the threat of over the >>>>>>>> top use. What they didnrCOt foresee was the collapse in voice calls of
any form. Like linear TV, itrCOs only the oldies that make voice calls.
(Generality alert)
Old industry, like the government, NHS, banking etc still make almost >>>>>>> exclusive use of traditional voice calls.
I find it difficult to believe the billing story, because if the calling >>>>>> via WiFi is controlled by a proprietary telco developed technology they can
easily develop the billing as well. The original Vodafone femto cells of >>>>>> about that era (2009) that plugged into your home Ethernet managed to bill
you just fine. If you control the call (and it was all circuit switched >>>>>> then) you can control the billing.
I hesitate to join this shouting match, but it raises a query in my mind: >>>>>
Suppose IrCOm on a ship, much too far from land to get any phone signal. But
the ship has decent Musklink WiFi, so would I be able to make WiFi calls >>>>> using my mobile phone? Where would my phone company think IrCOm calling >>>>> from, and bill the call as if I was there? And would there be too much >>>>> latency on the line to hold a normal conversation?
Not with Vodafone. They disable WiFi calling when overseas. Presumably it >>>> breaks commercial agreements with roaming partners.
Ah, I've never tried it. I'm on O2, and will try to remember to try it
next time I'm at sea (in about six months).
But, how does the phone know it's overseas if it's not receiving any phone signals?
It will be using a geolocated IP address via its WiFi connection.
How would that work at sea?
Starlink,
for example, goes to great lengths to geolocate the public IP address of
its users.
Presumably it knows their precise location anyway?
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
According to Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
Suppose IrCOm on a ship, much too far from land to get any phone signal. But
the ship has decent Musklink WiFi, so would I be able to make WiFi calls >>> using my mobile phone? Where would my phone company think IrCOm calling >>> from, and bill the call as if I was there? And would there be too much
latency on the line to hold a normal conversation?
Starlink's latecy is about 50ms which is fine for VoIP.
OK, thatrCOs good.
Your phone would connect over the WiFi to your mobile provider's
VoIP server so I expect your call would appear to be coming from
the UK.
Why the UK? The ship isnrCOt UK-owned or registered.
You pay the ship whatever you pay for the ship wifi,
Nothing
you pay your mobile carrier whatever you usually pay for a call,
probably nothing if the call is in your monthly minute bundle.
My concern would be if the shiprCOs, say, US-owned. It might appear that I was calling from the US, and be charged that way, which could be expensive.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
According to Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
Suppose IrCOm on a ship, much too far from land to get any phone signal. But
the ship has decent Musklink WiFi, so would I be able to make WiFi calls >>>> using my mobile phone? Where would my phone company think IrCOm calling >>>> from, and bill the call as if I was there? And would there be too much >>>> latency on the line to hold a normal conversation?
Starlink's latecy is about 50ms which is fine for VoIP.
OK, thatrCOs good.
Your phone would connect over the WiFi to your mobile provider's
VoIP server so I expect your call would appear to be coming from
the UK.
Why the UK? The ship isnrCOt UK-owned or registered.
You pay the ship whatever you pay for the ship wifi,
Nothing
you pay your mobile carrier whatever you usually pay for a call,
probably nothing if the call is in your monthly minute bundle.
My concern would be if the shiprCOs, say, US-owned. It might appear that I >> was calling from the US, and be charged that way, which could be expensive. >>
Seems o2 block WiFi calling when abroad as well.
https://www.o2.co.uk/help/international-and-network/wifi/wifi-and-4g-calling
Can I use WiFi and 4G Calling to make calls abroad?
WiFi Calling is not currently supported outside of the UK. In certain circumstances, however, it may be possible to enable WiFi Calling when abroad. Where used, additional charges will apply.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 20:13:43 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 17:13:29 -0000 (UTC), Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107k7vk$clv3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:49:56 on Thu, 14 Aug >>>>>>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107jt95$a8br$1@dont-email.me>, at 05:47:17 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
No true enough. But I doubt it was the inability to bill that held it back.Historical note: WiFi calling was originally devised to give in-building
coverage on large campuses (mainly in the USA), in around 2003. But they
couldn't find a reliable way to bill for the individual calls, and were
terrified everyone would be calling long distance and leeching away
revenue, so kicked it into the long grass.
That seems implausible. My phone has wifi calling and the calls
are treated
the same as if they were made over the mobile network. In my >>>>>>>>>>>>>> case that means
that calls to the US, Canada, Mexico and UK are free, anywhere >>>>>>>>>>>>>> else costs per
minute.
The phone has to log into the carrier's SIP (or whatever) server so they
know who it is.
Yes true WiFi calling (as opposed to some sort of over the top >>>>>>>>>>>>> service such
that uses IP) has always been under the control of the mobile operator.
Even back in 2003?
But it was, because at the time I was a freelance journalist covering
telecoms issues, and I spoke to the companies concerned.
Probably more of an excuse than a reality.
It wasn't an excuse - why don't you believe me? I had previously worked
with a network provider and almost all the reasons why products (fully
technically working) didn't get launched was "because we can't find a >>>>>>>> way to bill for it".
It took another decade or so for the proper technical standards to come
about.
They would help with interoperability, but in 2003 a proprietary scheme
could have been invoked, as long as it was reliable.
I can see telecoms executives getting in a flap about over the top >>>>>>>>> calls, which were starting around that time.
Do you mean things like Skype? The stuff I've been discussing is calls
to and from real phone numbers (either mobile or landline).
If anything, WiFi calling has
20yrs later
enabled cellular companies to see off some of the threat of over the >>>>>>>>> top use. What they didnrCOt foresee was the collapse in voice calls of
any form. Like linear TV, itrCOs only the oldies that make voice calls.
(Generality alert)
Old industry, like the government, NHS, banking etc still make almost >>>>>>>> exclusive use of traditional voice calls.
I find it difficult to believe the billing story, because if the calling
via WiFi is controlled by a proprietary telco developed technology they can
easily develop the billing as well. The original Vodafone femto cells of
about that era (2009) that plugged into your home Ethernet managed to bill
you just fine. If you control the call (and it was all circuit switched >>>>>>> then) you can control the billing.
I hesitate to join this shouting match, but it raises a query in my mind:
Suppose IrCOm on a ship, much too far from land to get any phone signal. But
the ship has decent Musklink WiFi, so would I be able to make WiFi calls >>>>>> using my mobile phone? Where would my phone company think IrCOm calling >>>>>> from, and bill the call as if I was there? And would there be too much >>>>>> latency on the line to hold a normal conversation?
Not with Vodafone. They disable WiFi calling when overseas. Presumably it >>>>> breaks commercial agreements with roaming partners.
Ah, I've never tried it. I'm on O2, and will try to remember to try it >>>> next time I'm at sea (in about six months).
But, how does the phone know it's overseas if it's not receiving any phone signals?
It will be using a geolocated IP address via its WiFi connection.
How would that work at sea?
Starlink,
for example, goes to great lengths to geolocate the public IP address of >>> its users.
Presumably it knows their precise location anyway?
This https://isc.sans.edu/diary/31612 might shed some light. I donrCOt pretend to be an expert.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 14/08/2025 14:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <107keki$e3np$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:43:30 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 14/08/2025 10:39, Roland Perry wrote:
Old industry, like the government, NHS, banking etc still make almost >>>>> exclusive use of traditional voice calls.
That will be why virtually all of my interactions with government, NHS >>>> and banks is by message
Using which platform? I've not yet encountered my taxman embracing
WhatsApp or Facebook messenger, for example.
Good old-fashioned email.
My GP has email, but:
rCLFor confidentiality reasons please note that no medical correspondence or requests for appointments or prescriptions can be accepted through the Practice email address.rCY
IrCOm trying hard to think what interactions I have with my GP that that doesnrCOt cover.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107kq46$h36g$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:59:34 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107k7vk$clv3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:49:56 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107jt95$a8br$1@dont-email.me>, at 05:47:17 on Thu, 14 Aug >>>>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Historical note: WiFi calling was originally devised to give >>>>>>>>>>> in-building
coverage on large campuses (mainly in the USA), in around >>>>>>>>>>> 2003. But they
couldn't find a reliable way to bill for the individual calls, >>>>>>>>>>> and were
terrified everyone would be calling long distance and leeching away >>>>>>>>>>> revenue, so kicked it into the long grass.
That seems implausible. My phone has wifi calling and the >>>>>>>>>> are treated the same as if they were made over the mobile >>>>>>>>>> network. In my case that means that calls to the US, Canada, >>>>>>>>>> Mexico and UK are free, anywhere else costs per minute.
The phone has to log into the carrier's SIP (or whatever)
server so they know who it is.
No true enough. But I doubt it was the inability to bill that held >>>>>>> it back.Yes true WiFi calling (as opposed to some sort of over the top >>>>>>>>> service such that uses IP) has always been under the control of >>>>>>>>> the mobile operator.
Even back in 2003?
But it was, because at the time I was a freelance journalist covering >>>>>> telecoms issues, and I spoke to the companies concerned.
Probably more of an excuse than a reality.
It wasn't an excuse - why don't you believe me? I had previously worked >>>> with a network provider and almost all the reasons why products (fully >>>> technically working) didn't get launched was "because we can't find a
way to bill for it".
It took another decade or so for the proper technical standards to come >>>>> about.
They would help with interoperability, but in 2003 a proprietary scheme >>>> could have been invoked, as long as it was reliable.
I can see telecoms executives getting in a flap about over the top
calls, which were starting around that time.
Do you mean things like Skype? The stuff I've been discussing is calls >>>> to and from real phone numbers (either mobile or landline).
If anything, WiFi calling has
20yrs later
enabled cellular companies to see off some of the threat of over the >>>>> top use. What they didnrCOt foresee was the collapse in voice calls of >>>>> any form. Like linear TV, itrCOs only the oldies that make voice calls. >>>>> (Generality alert)
Old industry, like the government, NHS, banking etc still make almost
exclusive use of traditional voice calls.
I find it difficult to believe the billing story,
Your difficulty is not my problem.
because if the calling via WiFi is controlled by a proprietary telco
developed technology they can easily develop the billing as well.
Not if the people in the billing department don't have sufficient
enthusiasm.
The original Vodafone femto cells of
about that era (2009)
2003 is 25 Internet-years before then.
that plugged into your home Ethernet managed to bill you just fine. If
you control the call (and it was all circuit switched then) you can
control the billing.
Only if someone writes the middleware.
But thatrCOs very different to them not finding a way to bill as you stated.
Too idle/tight fisted to work out a way to bill.
In message <107k7vk$clv3$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:49:56 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
But it was, because at the time I was a freelance journalist covering
telecoms issues, and I spoke to the companies concerned.
Probably more of an excuse than a reality.
It wasn't an excuse - why don't you believe me? I had previously worked
with a network provider and almost all the reasons why products (fully >technically working) didn't get launched was "because we can't find a
way to bill for it".
Old industry, like the government, NHS, banking etc still make almost >exclusive use of traditional voice calls.--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Plenty of people make voice calls but they are on Zoom, Teams or
WhatsApp. After traditional telecoms companies spent millions trying,
and failing, to promote video-phone services.
When I want to call a business and/or talk to a human being[1] I generally >> use a traditional voice call.
[1] DoesnrCOt always work, but maybe wanting to is part of being an oldie. >>
Sam
Your call is important to us. Did you know you can find answers to most questions on our website? You are caller 38 in the queue. Music. You are caller 37 in the queue. Music. You are caller..tri tone.
On 14/08/2025 17:11, Sam Wilson wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 14/08/2025 14:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <107keki$e3np$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:43:30 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 14/08/2025 10:39, Roland Perry wrote:
Old industry, like the government, NHS, banking etc still make almost >>>>>> exclusive use of traditional voice calls.
That will be why virtually all of my interactions with government, NHS >>>>> and banks is by message
Using which platform? I've not yet encountered my taxman embracing
WhatsApp or Facebook messenger, for example.
Good old-fashioned email.
My GP has email, but:
rCLFor confidentiality reasons please note that no medical
correspondence or
requests for appointments or prescriptions can be accepted through the
Practice email address.rCY
IrCOm trying hard to think what interactions I have with my GP that that
doesnrCOt cover.
The taxman uses e-mail, the surgery, and the hospitals, send me sms
messages or via the NHS app. The banks use emails or messages via their individual apps
On 14/08/2025 12:17, Tweed wrote:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:Your call is important to us. Did you know you can find answers to
Plenty of people make voice calls but they are on Zoom, Teams or
WhatsApp. After traditional telecoms companies spent millions trying,
and failing, to promote video-phone services.
When I want to call a business and/or talk to a human being[1] I generally >>> use a traditional voice call.
[1] DoesnrCOt always work, but maybe wanting to is part of being an oldie. >>>
Sam
most
questions on our website? You are caller 38 in the queue. Music. You are
caller 37 in the queue. Music. You are caller..tri tone.
Yes indeed, you put your finger on what the telecom companies didn't
realise was missing from the traditional phone network - it wasn't
video calling, it was what is known as "presence".
"Presence" is the little green dot that tells you the person at the
other end is there and will answer your call instead of sending you to
an answering service, or the tick that tells you they received your
message - and it is more or less the sole reason that traditional
telephony and messaging is dead, replaced by the OTT* services.
* Over The Top - delivered over IP by a 3rd party provider, not the
network itself; i.e. WhatsApp, Signal, FB Messenger, iMessage, etc. etc.
In message <107k4hk$bul9$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:51:16 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, boltar@galactica.caprica remarked:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 16:14:47 +0100
Certes <Certes@example.org> wibbled:
On 13/08/2025 15:54, boltar@galactica.caprica wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 15:44:45 +0100
Certes <Certes@example.org> wibbled:
On 13/08/2025 14:31, boltar@galactica.caprica wrote:
App on phone connects to SIP/whatever server run by uni over wifi. Server
connects to phone network or just uses internet to connect to recipient. >>>>>> Server logs call, server sends bill from uni if required when required. >>>>>>
THE PHONE COMPANY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!
The bit where server connects to phone network might work more smoothly >>>>> if there is a phone company at the other end of the cable.
It must be idiot week again.
Nothing to do with billing individual wifi users.
Indeed, the phone company does not bill the individual who connected via >>>wifi, just as it can't bill the individual who picks up a traditional >>>phone shared between several people in a house or office. If that's
what your shouty comment was meant to convey then it was correct but
very unclear.
Someone finally got it! Wasn't hard was it!
Thats right. User pays university for wifi phone service,
No they don't, they use the free wifi at the site they are at (and who
said it was University?)
university pays phone company.
They have no contract with the phone company, only with their broadband >supplier.
I know, I know, it requires a totally out borderline Einstein level of rocket >>science level of comprehension but I'm hoping a lightbulb might finally go >>on over Rolands head.
I think it requires more than a lightbulb to illuminate the totally
confused ideas you have.
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 09:43:08 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <107k4hk$bul9$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:51:16 on Thu, 14 AugBack when it was possible to make calls via the Wi-Fi on the
2025, boltar@galactica.caprica remarked:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 16:14:47 +0100
Certes <Certes@example.org> wibbled:
On 13/08/2025 15:54, boltar@galactica.caprica wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 15:44:45 +0100
Certes <Certes@example.org> wibbled:
On 13/08/2025 14:31, boltar@galactica.caprica wrote:
App on phone connects to SIP/whatever server run by uni over wifi. Server
connects to phone network or just uses internet to connect to recipient.
Server logs call, server sends bill from uni if required when required. >>>>>>>
THE PHONE COMPANY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!
The bit where server connects to phone network might work more smoothly >>>>>> if there is a phone company at the other end of the cable.
It must be idiot week again.
Nothing to do with billing individual wifi users.
Indeed, the phone company does not bill the individual who connected via >>>> wifi, just as it can't bill the individual who picks up a traditional
phone shared between several people in a house or office. If that's
what your shouty comment was meant to convey then it was correct but
very unclear.
Someone finally got it! Wasn't hard was it!
Thats right. User pays university for wifi phone service,
No they don't, they use the free wifi at the site they are at (and who
said it was University?)
university pays phone company.
They have no contract with the phone company, only with their broadband
supplier.
I know, I know, it requires a totally out borderline Einstein level of rocket
science level of comprehension but I'm hoping a lightbulb might finally go >>> on over Rolands head.
I think it requires more than a lightbulb to illuminate the totally
confused ideas you have.
Underground there was notjing in my billing that suggested anything
about the intervention of a third party in the process. AFAIAA the Wi-Fi/internet path is merely an insertion into the path between the
'phone and the first entry point to the mobile system.
In message <107kssk$htv1$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:46:44 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 14/08/2025 14:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <107keki$e3np$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:43:30 on Thu, 14 Aug >>>2025, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 14/08/2025 10:39, Roland Perry wrote:
Old industry, like the government, NHS, banking etc still make >>>>>almost exclusive use of traditional voice calls.
That will be why virtually all of my interactions with government, >>>>NHS and banks is by message
Using which platform? I've not yet encountered my taxman embracing >>>WhatsApp or Facebook messenger, for example.
Good old-fashioned email.
I've not had an email from a bank that said anything other than "log
into our website" for decades. My taxman doesn't reply to emails, and
most of my NHS stuff arrives by SMS.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 14/08/2025 14:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <107keki$e3np$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:43:30 on Thu, 14 Aug
2025, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 14/08/2025 10:39, Roland Perry wrote:
Old industry, like the government, NHS, banking etc still make almost >>>>> exclusive use of traditional voice calls.
That will be why virtually all of my interactions with government, NHS >>>> and banks is by message
Using which platform? I've not yet encountered my taxman embracing
WhatsApp or Facebook messenger, for example.
Good old-fashioned email.
My GP has email, but:
oFor confidentiality reasons please note that no medical correspondence or >requests for appointments or prescriptions can be accepted through the >Practice email address.o
IAm trying hard to think what interactions I have with my GP that that >doesnAt cover.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
According to Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
Suppose IAm on a ship, much too far from land to get any phone signal. But >>>> the ship has decent Musklink WiFi, so would I be able to make WiFi calls >>>> using my mobile phone? Where would my phone company think IAm calling >>>> from, and bill the call as if I was there? And would there be too much >>>> latency on the line to hold a normal conversation?
Starlink's latecy is about 50ms which is fine for VoIP.
OK, thatAs good.
Your phone would connect over the WiFi to your mobile provider's
VoIP server so I expect your call would appear to be coming from
the UK.
Why the UK? The ship isnAt UK-owned or registered.
You pay the ship whatever you pay for the ship wifi,
Nothing
you pay your mobile carrier whatever you usually pay for a call,
probably nothing if the call is in your monthly minute bundle.
My concern would be if the shipAs, say, US-owned. It might appear that I
was calling from the US, and be charged that way, which could be expensive. >>
Seems o2 block WiFi calling when abroad as well.
https://www.o2.co.uk/help/international-and-network/wifi/wifi-and-4g-calling
Can I use WiFi and 4G Calling to make calls abroad?
WiFi Calling is not currently supported outside of the UK. In certain >circumstances, however, it may be possible to enable WiFi Calling when >abroad. Where used, additional charges will apply.
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 20:38:17 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:I suspect an underlying inability to be sure of a usable data
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
According to Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
Suppose I-Am on a ship, much too far from land to get any phone signal. But
the ship has decent Musklink WiFi, so would I be able to make WiFi calls >>>>> using my mobile phone? Where would my phone company think I-Am calling >>>>> from, and bill the call as if I was there? And would there be too much >>>>> latency on the line to hold a normal conversation?
Starlink's latecy is about 50ms which is fine for VoIP.
OK, that-As good.
Your phone would connect over the WiFi to your mobile provider's
VoIP server so I expect your call would appear to be coming from
the UK.
Why the UK? The ship isn-At UK-owned or registered.
You pay the ship whatever you pay for the ship wifi,
Nothing
you pay your mobile carrier whatever you usually pay for a call,
probably nothing if the call is in your monthly minute bundle.
My concern would be if the ship-As, say, US-owned. It might appear that I >>> was calling from the US, and be charged that way, which could be expensive. >>>
Seems o2 block WiFi calling when abroad as well.
https://www.o2.co.uk/help/international-and-network/wifi/wifi-and-4g-calling >>
Can I use WiFi and 4G Calling to make calls abroad?
WiFi Calling is not currently supported outside of the UK. In certain
circumstances, however, it may be possible to enable WiFi Calling when
abroad. Where used, additional charges will apply.
connection in foreign parts, "certain circumstances" translating as
"if you are lucky enough to get one".
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 20:38:17 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:I suspect an underlying inability to be sure of a usable data
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
According to Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
Suppose I-Am on a ship, much too far from land to get any phone signal. But
the ship has decent Musklink WiFi, so would I be able to make WiFi calls >>>>> using my mobile phone? Where would my phone company think I-Am calling >>>>> from, and bill the call as if I was there? And would there be too much >>>>> latency on the line to hold a normal conversation?
Starlink's latecy is about 50ms which is fine for VoIP.
OK, that-As good.
Your phone would connect over the WiFi to your mobile provider's
VoIP server so I expect your call would appear to be coming from
the UK.
Why the UK? The ship isn-At UK-owned or registered.
You pay the ship whatever you pay for the ship wifi,
Nothing
you pay your mobile carrier whatever you usually pay for a call,
probably nothing if the call is in your monthly minute bundle.
My concern would be if the ship-As, say, US-owned. It might appear that I >>> was calling from the US, and be charged that way, which could be expensive. >>>
Seems o2 block WiFi calling when abroad as well.
https://www.o2.co.uk/help/international-and-network/wifi/wifi-and-4g-calling >>
Can I use WiFi and 4G Calling to make calls abroad?
WiFi Calling is not currently supported outside of the UK. In certain
circumstances, however, it may be possible to enable WiFi Calling when
abroad. Where used, additional charges will apply.
connection in foreign parts, "certain circumstances" translating as
"if you are lucky enough to get one".
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 16:11:43 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:Querying opening hours ?
On 14/08/2025 14:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <107keki$e3np$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:43:30 on Thu, 14 Aug >>>> 2025, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 14/08/2025 10:39, Roland Perry wrote:
Old industry, like the government, NHS, banking etc still make almost >>>>>> exclusive use of traditional voice calls.
That will be why virtually all of my interactions with government, NHS >>>>> and banks is by message
Using which platform? I've not yet encountered my taxman embracing
WhatsApp or Facebook messenger, for example.
Good old-fashioned email.
My GP has email, but:
-oFor confidentiality reasons please note that no medical correspondence or >> requests for appointments or prescriptions can be accepted through the
Practice email address.-o
I-Am trying hard to think what interactions I have with my GP that that
doesn-At cover.
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 09:43:08 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <107k4hk$bul9$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:51:16 on Thu, 14 AugBack when it was possible to make calls via the Wi-Fi on the
2025, boltar@galactica.caprica remarked:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 16:14:47 +0100
Certes <Certes@example.org> wibbled:
On 13/08/2025 15:54, boltar@galactica.caprica wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 15:44:45 +0100
Certes <Certes@example.org> wibbled:
On 13/08/2025 14:31, boltar@galactica.caprica wrote:
App on phone connects to SIP/whatever server run by uni over >>>>>>>wifi. Server
connects to phone network or just uses internet to connect to recipient.
Server logs call, server sends bill from uni if required when required. >>>>>>>
THE PHONE COMPANY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!
The bit where server connects to phone network might work more smoothly >>>>>> if there is a phone company at the other end of the cable.
It must be idiot week again.
Nothing to do with billing individual wifi users.
Indeed, the phone company does not bill the individual who connected via >>>>wifi, just as it can't bill the individual who picks up a traditional >>>>phone shared between several people in a house or office. If that's >>>>what your shouty comment was meant to convey then it was correct but >>>>very unclear.
Someone finally got it! Wasn't hard was it!
Thats right. User pays university for wifi phone service,
No they don't, they use the free wifi at the site they are at (and who
said it was University?)
university pays phone company.
They have no contract with the phone company, only with their broadband >>supplier.
I know, I know, it requires a totally out borderline Einstein level of rocket
science level of comprehension but I'm hoping a lightbulb might finally go >>>on over Rolands head.
I think it requires more than a lightbulb to illuminate the totally >>confused ideas you have.
Underground there was notjing in my billing that suggested anything
about the intervention of a third party in the process. AFAIAA the >Wi-Fi/internet path is merely an insertion into the path between the
'phone and the first entry point to the mobile system.
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 20:38:17 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:I suspect an underlying inability to be sure of a usable data
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
According to Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
Suppose I-Am on a ship, much too far from land to get any phone signal. But
the ship has decent Musklink WiFi, so would I be able to make WiFi calls >>>>>> using my mobile phone? Where would my phone company think I-Am calling >>>>>> from, and bill the call as if I was there? And would there be too much >>>>>> latency on the line to hold a normal conversation?
Starlink's latecy is about 50ms which is fine for VoIP.
OK, that-As good.
Your phone would connect over the WiFi to your mobile provider's
VoIP server so I expect your call would appear to be coming from
the UK.
Why the UK? The ship isn-At UK-owned or registered.
You pay the ship whatever you pay for the ship wifi,
Nothing
you pay your mobile carrier whatever you usually pay for a call,
probably nothing if the call is in your monthly minute bundle.
My concern would be if the ship-As, say, US-owned. It might appear that I >>>> was calling from the US, and be charged that way, which could be expensive.
Seems o2 block WiFi calling when abroad as well.
https://www.o2.co.uk/help/international-and-network/wifi/wifi-and-4g-calling
Can I use WiFi and 4G Calling to make calls abroad?
WiFi Calling is not currently supported outside of the UK. In certain
circumstances, however, it may be possible to enable WiFi Calling when
abroad. Where used, additional charges will apply.
connection in foreign parts, "certain circumstances" translating as
"if you are lucky enough to get one".
I think itrCOs more down to the fact that the local cellular telco would be bypassed, and thus roaming revenue would be lost. (Revenue between foreign and uk carrier at the wholesale level, not the consumer facing charges).
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 20:38:17 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:I suspect an underlying inability to be sure of a usable data
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
According to Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
Suppose I-Am on a ship, much too far from land to get any phone signal. But
the ship has decent Musklink WiFi, so would I be able to make WiFi calls
using my mobile phone? Where would my phone company think I-Am calling >>>>>>> from, and bill the call as if I was there? And would there be too much >>>>>>> latency on the line to hold a normal conversation?
Starlink's latecy is about 50ms which is fine for VoIP.
OK, that-As good.
Your phone would connect over the WiFi to your mobile provider's
VoIP server so I expect your call would appear to be coming from
the UK.
Why the UK? The ship isn-At UK-owned or registered.
You pay the ship whatever you pay for the ship wifi,
Nothing
you pay your mobile carrier whatever you usually pay for a call,
probably nothing if the call is in your monthly minute bundle.
My concern would be if the ship-As, say, US-owned. It might appear that I >>>>> was calling from the US, and be charged that way, which could be expensive.
Seems o2 block WiFi calling when abroad as well.
https://www.o2.co.uk/help/international-and-network/wifi/wifi-and-4g-calling
Can I use WiFi and 4G Calling to make calls abroad?
WiFi Calling is not currently supported outside of the UK. In certain
circumstances, however, it may be possible to enable WiFi Calling when >>>> abroad. Where used, additional charges will apply.
connection in foreign parts, "certain circumstances" translating as
"if you are lucky enough to get one".
I think itrCOs more down to the fact that the local cellular telco would be >> bypassed, and thus roaming revenue would be lost. (Revenue between foreign >> and uk carrier at the wholesale level, not the consumer facing charges).
Way back in the 1990s some folks in the states set up an experiment (the TPC.INT DNS domain; see RFC 1486 and successors) which advertised a way of sending email to a fax machine. It really relied on free local calls,
which at the time was rare outside the US and possibly Canada, and also on the forebearance of the PTTs, whose revenue would have been hit and some of whom were involved in the IETF process. The term rCLglobal bypassrCY was being
bandied about.
It would be an understatement to say that things have changed since then.
Sam
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 20:38:17 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:I suspect an underlying inability to be sure of a usable data
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
According to Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
Suppose IrCOm on a ship, much too far from land to get any >>>>>>>>phone signal. But the ship has decent Musklink WiFi, so would I >>>>>>>>be able to make WiFi calls using my mobile phone? Where would >>>>>>>>my phone company think IrCOm calling from, and bill the call as >>>>>>>>if I was there? And would there be too much latency on the line to hold a normal conversation?
Starlink's latecy is about 50ms which is fine for VoIP.
OK, thatrCOs good.
Your phone would connect over the WiFi to your mobile provider's >>>>>>> VoIP server so I expect your call would appear to be coming from >>>>>>> the UK.
Why the UK? The ship isnrCOt UK-owned or registered.
You pay the ship whatever you pay for the ship wifi,
Nothing
you pay your mobile carrier whatever you usually pay for a call, >>>>>>> probably nothing if the call is in your monthly minute bundle.
My concern would be if the shiprCOs, say, US-owned. It might appear that I
was calling from the US, and be charged that way, which could be >>>>>>expensive.
Seems o2 block WiFi calling when abroad as well.
https://www.o2.co.uk/help/international-and-network/wifi/wifi-and-4g
Can I use WiFi and 4G Calling to make calls abroad?
WiFi Calling is not currently supported outside of the UK. In certain >>>>> circumstances, however, it may be possible to enable WiFi Calling when >>>>> abroad. Where used, additional charges will apply.
connection in foreign parts, "certain circumstances" translating as
"if you are lucky enough to get one".
I think itrCOs more down to the fact that the local cellular telco would be >>> bypassed, and thus roaming revenue would be lost. (Revenue between foreign >>> and uk carrier at the wholesale level, not the consumer facing charges).
Way back in the 1990s some folks in the states set up an experiment (the
TPC.INT DNS domain; see RFC 1486 and successors) which advertised a way of >> sending email to a fax machine. It really relied on free local calls,
which at the time was rare outside the US and possibly Canada, and also on >> the forebearance of the PTTs, whose revenue would have been hit and some of >> whom were involved in the IETF process. The term rCLglobal bypassrCY
was being
bandied about.
It would be an understatement to say that things have changed since then.
Sam
Indeed. Telcos have been trying to push water uphill since the public >Internet was invented. TheyrCOve been terrified of being turned into what is >termed a provider of a dumb pipe - ie just providing a tcp/ip connection
and not much else. Now with the impending demise of landline telephones I >think we have finally reached that point. Perhaps the only provider of an >additional service is Vodafone, who route voice calls
to my mobile as well as simple tcp/ip.
When I started work we still had an active telex machinerCarCa
In message <107p8ml$1ib4d$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:32:53 on Sat, 16 AugI meant my regular Vodafone cellular telephone number. It is effectively a service in addition to the tcp/ip connection. Compare to my cellular
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:Way back in the 1990s some folks in the states set up an experiment (the >>> TPC.INT DNS domain; see RFC 1486 and successors) which advertised a way of >>> sending email to a fax machine. It really relied on free local calls,
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 20:38:17 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:I suspect an underlying inability to be sure of a usable data
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
According to Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
Suppose IrCOm on a ship, much too far from land to get any
phone signal. But the ship has decent Musklink WiFi, so would I >>>>>>>>> be able to make WiFi calls using my mobile phone? Where would >>>>>>>>> my phone company think IrCOm calling from, and bill the call as >>>>>>>>> if I was there? And would there be too much latency on the line >>>>>>>>> to hold a normal conversation?
Starlink's latecy is about 50ms which is fine for VoIP.
OK, thatrCOs good.
Your phone would connect over the WiFi to your mobile provider's >>>>>>>> VoIP server so I expect your call would appear to be coming from >>>>>>>> the UK.
Why the UK? The ship isnrCOt UK-owned or registered.
You pay the ship whatever you pay for the ship wifi,
Nothing
you pay your mobile carrier whatever you usually pay for a call, >>>>>>>> probably nothing if the call is in your monthly minute bundle.
My concern would be if the shiprCOs, say, US-owned. It might appear that I
was calling from the US, and be charged that way, which could be >>>>>>> expensive.
Seems o2 block WiFi calling when abroad as well.
https://www.o2.co.uk/help/international-and-network/wifi/wifi-and-4g >>>>>>
Can I use WiFi and 4G Calling to make calls abroad?
WiFi Calling is not currently supported outside of the UK. In certain >>>>>> circumstances, however, it may be possible to enable WiFi Calling when >>>>>> abroad. Where used, additional charges will apply.
connection in foreign parts, "certain circumstances" translating as
"if you are lucky enough to get one".
I think itrCOs more down to the fact that the local cellular telco would be
bypassed, and thus roaming revenue would be lost. (Revenue between foreign >>>> and uk carrier at the wholesale level, not the consumer facing charges). >>>
which at the time was rare outside the US and possibly Canada, and also on >>> the forebearance of the PTTs, whose revenue would have been hit and some of >>> whom were involved in the IETF process. The term rCLglobal bypassrCY
was being
bandied about.
It would be an understatement to say that things have changed since then. >>>
Sam
Indeed. Telcos have been trying to push water uphill since the public
Internet was invented. TheyrCOve been terrified of being turned into what is >> termed a provider of a dumb pipe - ie just providing a tcp/ip connection
and not much else. Now with the impending demise of landline telephones I
think we have finally reached that point. Perhaps the only provider of an
additional service is Vodafone, who route voice calls
Do you mean calls to a geographic number? Vodafone is perhaps an unusual telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines.
Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when
they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who
had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product,
but again didn't install landline phones previously either. I suspect
that BT would like to see the back of geographic numbers entirely (for consumers, anyway), and not just the associated copper, which can't
help.
Starlink,
for example, goes to great lengths to geolocate the public IP address of >>>> its users.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> and others wrote:
Starlink,
for example, goes to great lengths to geolocate the public IP address of >>>>> its users.
Going further off topic I was at a small country show last weekend where mobile signal was atrocious over all networks ,many merchants could not use their card payment terminals as a result.
One bric a brac stall had an item I would have liked to purchase but it exceeded the amount of cash I had taken but the trader did have his bank account details so we could have done a direct transfer except though the poor signal got me to my account it would not allow anything else to be done.
I tried WIFI to see if any open ones were available but there were no
public ones , except for a minute or so one called STARLINK appeared and actually worked well on a couple of websites but I wasnrCOt too sure about its security so decided not to do the banking through it.
AFAIK my phone a fairly old IPhone cannot access the system, so what was
it , someone with an actual device that could and mistakenly left it accessible to all is my guess , later it had the padlock symbol and asked
for the code.
In this day and age not arranging for a decent mobile signal or public WIFI coverage seems a bit short sited especially if you want small traders to
rent a plot. The Committee and Members Tent had a hotspot but it was secured.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> and others wrote:
Starlink,
for example, goes to great lengths to geolocate the public IP address of >>>>> its users.
Going further off topic I was at a small country show last weekend where mobile signal was atrocious over all networks ,many merchants could not use their card payment terminals as a result.
One bric a brac stall had an item I would have liked to purchase but it exceeded the amount of cash I had taken but the trader did have his bank account details so we could have done a direct transfer except though the poor signal got me to my account it would not allow anything else to be done.
I tried WIFI to see if any open ones were available but there were no
public ones , except for a minute or so one called STARLINK appeared and actually worked well on a couple of websites but I wasnrCOt too sure about its security so decided not to do the banking through it.
AFAIK my phone a fairly old IPhone cannot access the system, so what was
it , someone with an actual device that could and mistakenly left it accessible to all is my guess , later it had the padlock symbol and asked
for the code.
In this day and age not arranging for a decent mobile signal or public WIFI coverage seems a bit short sited especially if you want small traders to
rent a plot. The Committee and Members Tent had a hotspot but it was secured.
GH
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:Way back in the 1990s some folks in the states set up an experiment (the
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 20:38:17 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:I suspect an underlying inability to be sure of a usable data
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
According to Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
Suppose I-Am on a ship, much too far from land to get any phone signal. But
the ship has decent Musklink WiFi, so would I be able to make WiFi calls
using my mobile phone? Where would my phone company think I-Am calling
from, and bill the call as if I was there? And would there be too much
latency on the line to hold a normal conversation?
Starlink's latecy is about 50ms which is fine for VoIP.
OK, that-As good.
Your phone would connect over the WiFi to your mobile provider's >>>>>>> VoIP server so I expect your call would appear to be coming from >>>>>>> the UK.
Why the UK? The ship isn-At UK-owned or registered.
You pay the ship whatever you pay for the ship wifi,
Nothing
you pay your mobile carrier whatever you usually pay for a call, >>>>>>> probably nothing if the call is in your monthly minute bundle.
My concern would be if the ship-As, say, US-owned. It might appear that I
was calling from the US, and be charged that way, which could be expensive.
Seems o2 block WiFi calling when abroad as well.
https://www.o2.co.uk/help/international-and-network/wifi/wifi-and-4g-calling
Can I use WiFi and 4G Calling to make calls abroad?
WiFi Calling is not currently supported outside of the UK. In certain >>>>> circumstances, however, it may be possible to enable WiFi Calling when >>>>> abroad. Where used, additional charges will apply.
connection in foreign parts, "certain circumstances" translating as
"if you are lucky enough to get one".
I think itrCOs more down to the fact that the local cellular telco would be >>> bypassed, and thus roaming revenue would be lost. (Revenue between foreign >>> and uk carrier at the wholesale level, not the consumer facing charges). >>
TPC.INT DNS domain; see RFC 1486 and successors) which advertised a way of >> sending email to a fax machine. It really relied on free local calls,
which at the time was rare outside the US and possibly Canada, and also on >> the forebearance of the PTTs, whose revenue would have been hit and some of >> whom were involved in the IETF process. The term rCLglobal bypassrCY was being
bandied about.
It would be an understatement to say that things have changed since then.
Sam
Indeed. Telcos have been trying to push water uphill since the public Internet was invented. TheyrCOve been terrified of being turned into what is termed a provider of a dumb pipe - ie just providing a tcp/ip connection
and not much else. . . .
. . . Now with the impending demise of landline telephones I
think we have finally reached that point. Perhaps the only provider of an additional service is Vodafone, who route voice calls to my mobile as well
as simple tcp/ip.
When I started work we still had an active telex machinerCarCa
Vodafone is perhaps an unusual
telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines.
Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when
they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who
had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product,
but again didn't install landline phones previously either.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Vodafone is perhaps an unusual
telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines.
Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when
they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to
offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who
had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product,
but again didn't install landline phones previously either.
In what sense was Vodafone unusual, if EE and O2 also didnrCOt offer landlines?
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 09:43:08 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
I think it requires more than a lightbulb to illuminate the totally >>confused ideas you have.Back when it was possible to make calls via the Wi-Fi on the
Underground there was notjing in my billing that suggested anything
about the intervention of a third party in the process. AFAIAA the >Wi-Fi/internet path is merely an insertion into the path between the
'phone and the first entry point to the mobile system.
On 16/08/2025 11:08, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Vodafone is perhaps an unusual
telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines.
Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when
they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to
offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who
had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product,
but again didn't install landline phones previously either.
In what sense was Vodafone unusual, if EE and O2 also didnrCOt offer
landlines?
O2 was originally BT Cellnet IIRC so landlines wee available.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107p8ml$1ib4d$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:32:53 on Sat, 16 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:Way back in the 1990s some folks in the states set up an experiment (the >>>> TPC.INT DNS domain; see RFC 1486 and successors) which advertised a way of >>>> sending email to a fax machine. It really relied on free local calls, >>>> which at the time was rare outside the US and possibly Canada, and also on >>>> the forebearance of the PTTs, whose revenue would have been hit and some of
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 20:38:17 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:I suspect an underlying inability to be sure of a usable data
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
According to Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
Suppose IrCOm on a ship, much too far from land to get any >>>>>>>>>> phone signal. But the ship has decent Musklink WiFi, so would I >>>>>>>>>> be able to make WiFi calls using my mobile phone? Where would >>>>>>>>>> my phone company think IrCOm calling from, and bill the call as >>>>>>>>>> if I was there? And would there be too much latency on the line >>>>>>>>>> to hold a normal conversation?
Starlink's latecy is about 50ms which is fine for VoIP.
OK, thatrCOs good.
Your phone would connect over the WiFi to your mobile provider's >>>>>>>>> VoIP server so I expect your call would appear to be coming from >>>>>>>>> the UK.
Why the UK? The ship isnrCOt UK-owned or registered.
You pay the ship whatever you pay for the ship wifi,
Nothing
you pay your mobile carrier whatever you usually pay for a call, >>>>>>>>> probably nothing if the call is in your monthly minute bundle. >>>>>>>>My concern would be if the shiprCOs, say, US-owned. It might >>>>>>>>appear that I
was calling from the US, and be charged that way, which could be >>>>>>>> expensive.
Seems o2 block WiFi calling when abroad as well.
https://www.o2.co.uk/help/international-and-network/wifi/wifi-and-4g >>>>>>>
Can I use WiFi and 4G Calling to make calls abroad?
WiFi Calling is not currently supported outside of the UK. In certain >>>>>>> circumstances, however, it may be possible to enable WiFi Calling when >>>>>>> abroad. Where used, additional charges will apply.
connection in foreign parts, "certain circumstances" translating as >>>>>> "if you are lucky enough to get one".
I think itrCOs more down to the fact that the local cellular telco >>>>>would be
bypassed, and thus roaming revenue would be lost. (Revenue between foreign
and uk carrier at the wholesale level, not the consumer facing charges). >>>>
whom were involved in the IETF process. The term rCLglobal bypassrCY
was being
bandied about.
It would be an understatement to say that things have changed since then. >>>>
Sam
Indeed. Telcos have been trying to push water uphill since the public
Internet was invented. TheyrCOve been terrified of being turned into what is
termed a provider of a dumb pipe - ie just providing a tcp/ip connection >>> and not much else. Now with the impending demise of landline telephones I >>> think we have finally reached that point. Perhaps the only provider of an >>> additional service is Vodafone, who route voice calls
Do you mean calls to a geographic number? Vodafone is perhaps an unusual
telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines.
Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when
they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to
offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who
had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product,
but again didn't install landline phones previously either. I suspect
that BT would like to see the back of geographic numbers entirely (for
consumers, anyway), and not just the associated copper, which can't
help.
I meant my regular Vodafone cellular telephone number.
It is effectively a
service in addition to the tcp/ip connection.
Compare to my cellular enabled iPad. For reasons only known to Apple,
iPads canrCOt make or receive cellular calls even if fitted with a
cellular modem.
My iPad has a mobile eSIM, so the cellular provider is only supplying a
dumb pipe - the thing telcos dreaded.
On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 11:43:40 +0100
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> gabbled:
On 16/08/2025 11:08, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Vodafone is perhaps an unusual
telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines.
Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when
they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to >>>> offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who >>>> had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product, >>>> but again didn't install landline phones previously either.
In what sense was Vodafone unusual, if EE and O2 also didnrCOt offer
landlines?
O2 was originally BT Cellnet IIRC so landlines wee available.
One of the biggest UK corporate mistakes in recent history that rarely gets mentioned was BT spinning off cellnet to concentrate on landlines just when mobile usages was taking off. Then to cap it all they sold it entirely in 2005.
10 years later they had to pay a fortune for EE to play catch up.
I'm amazed BT still exists given the utter fuckwits who've run it over the years.
In message <107pejh$1jj4p$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:13:37 on Sat, 16 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107p8ml$1ib4d$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:32:53 on Sat, 16 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:Way back in the 1990s some folks in the states set up an experiment (the >>>>> TPC.INT DNS domain; see RFC 1486 and successors) which advertised a way of
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 20:38:17 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:I suspect an underlying inability to be sure of a usable data
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
According to Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
Suppose IrCOm on a ship, much too far from land to get any >>>>>>>>>>> phone signal. But the ship has decent Musklink WiFi, so would I >>>>>>>>>>> be able to make WiFi calls using my mobile phone? Where would >>>>>>>>>>> my phone company think IrCOm calling from, and bill the call as >>>>>>>>>>> if I was there? And would there be too much latency on the line >>>>>>>>>>> to hold a normal conversation?
Starlink's latecy is about 50ms which is fine for VoIP.
OK, thatrCOs good.
Your phone would connect over the WiFi to your mobile provider's >>>>>>>>>> VoIP server so I expect your call would appear to be coming from >>>>>>>>>> the UK.
Why the UK? The ship isnrCOt UK-owned or registered.
You pay the ship whatever you pay for the ship wifi,
Nothing
you pay your mobile carrier whatever you usually pay for a call, >>>>>>>>>> probably nothing if the call is in your monthly minute bundle. >>>>>>>>>My concern would be if the shiprCOs, say, US-owned. It might >>>>>>>>> appear that I
was calling from the US, and be charged that way, which could be >>>>>>>>> expensive.
Seems o2 block WiFi calling when abroad as well.
https://www.o2.co.uk/help/international-and-network/wifi/wifi-and-4g >>>>>>>>
Can I use WiFi and 4G Calling to make calls abroad?
WiFi Calling is not currently supported outside of the UK. In certain >>>>>>>> circumstances, however, it may be possible to enable WiFi Calling when >>>>>>>> abroad. Where used, additional charges will apply.
connection in foreign parts, "certain circumstances" translating as >>>>>>> "if you are lucky enough to get one".
I think itrCOs more down to the fact that the local cellular telco >>>>>> would be
bypassed, and thus roaming revenue would be lost. (Revenue between foreign
and uk carrier at the wholesale level, not the consumer facing charges). >>>>>
sending email to a fax machine. It really relied on free local calls, >>>>> which at the time was rare outside the US and possibly Canada, and also on
the forebearance of the PTTs, whose revenue would have been hit and some of
whom were involved in the IETF process. The term rCLglobal bypassrCY >>>>> was being
bandied about.
It would be an understatement to say that things have changed since then. >>>>>
Sam
Indeed. Telcos have been trying to push water uphill since the public
Internet was invented. TheyrCOve been terrified of being turned into what is
termed a provider of a dumb pipe - ie just providing a tcp/ip connection >>>> and not much else. Now with the impending demise of landline telephones I >>>> think we have finally reached that point. Perhaps the only provider of an >>>> additional service is Vodafone, who route voice calls
Do you mean calls to a geographic number? Vodafone is perhaps an unusual >>> telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines.
Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when
they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to
offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who
had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product,
but again didn't install landline phones previously either. I suspect
that BT would like to see the back of geographic numbers entirely (for
consumers, anyway), and not just the associated copper, which can't
help.
I meant my regular Vodafone cellular telephone number.
But don't all mobile phone companies route voice calls to the handsets? Seems like a fairly fundamental requirement.
It is effectively a
service in addition to the tcp/ip connection.
Most people would regard the tcp/ip service as "additional to the voice calls".
In message <107pejh$1jj4p$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:13:37 on Sat, 16 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107p8ml$1ib4d$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:32:53 on Sat, 16 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 20:38:17 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:I suspect an underlying inability to be sure of a usable data
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
According to Recliner-a <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
Suppose IrCOm on a ship, much too far from land to get any >>>>>>>>>>> phone signal. But-a the ship has decent Musklink WiFi, so would I >>>>>>>>>>> be able to make WiFi calls-a using my mobile phone?-a Where would >>>>>>>>>>> my phone company think IrCOm calling-a from, and bill the call as >>>>>>>>>>> if I was there?-a And would there be too much-a latency on the >>>>>>>>>>> line
to hold a normal conversation?
Starlink's latecy is about 50ms which is fine for VoIP.
OK, thatrCOs good.
Your phone would connect over the WiFi to your mobile provider's >>>>>>>>>> VoIP server so I expect your call would appear to be coming from >>>>>>>>>> the UK.
Why the UK?-a The ship isnrCOt UK-owned or registered.
You pay the ship whatever you pay for the ship wifi,
Nothing
you pay your mobile carrier whatever you usually pay for a call, >>>>>>>>>> probably nothing if the call is in your monthly minute bundle. >>>>>>>>>My concern would be if the shiprCOs, say, US-owned. It might >>>>>>>>> appear that I
was calling from the US, and be charged that way, which could be >>>>>>>>> expensive.
Seems o2 block WiFi calling when abroad as well.
https://www.o2.co.uk/help/international-and-network/wifi/wifi-and-4g >>>>>>>>
Can I use WiFi and 4G Calling to make calls abroad?
WiFi Calling is not currently supported outside of the UK. In >>>>>>>> certain
circumstances, however, it may be possible to enable WiFi
Calling when
abroad. Where used, additional charges will apply.
connection in foreign parts, "certain circumstances" translating as >>>>>>> "if you are lucky enough to get one".
I think itrCOs more down to the fact that the local cellular telco >>>>>> would be
bypassed, and thus roaming revenue would be lost. (Revenue between >>>>>> foreign
and uk carrier at the wholesale level, not the consumer facing
charges).
Way back in the 1990s some folks in the states set up an experiment >>>>> (the
TPC.INT DNS domain; see RFC 1486 and successors) which advertised a >>>>> way of
sending email to a fax machine.-a It really relied on free local calls, >>>>> which at the time was rare outside the US and possibly Canada, and
also on
the forebearance of the PTTs, whose revenue would have been hit and >>>>> some of
whom were involved in the IETF process.-a The term rCLglobal bypassrCY >>>>> was being
bandied about.
It would be an understatement to say that things have changed since >>>>> then.
Sam
Indeed. Telcos have been trying to push water uphill since the public
Internet was invented. TheyrCOve been terrified of being turned into
what is
termed a provider of a dumb pipe - ie just providing a tcp/ip
connection
and not much else. Now with the impending demise of landline
telephones I
think we have finally reached that point. Perhaps the only provider
of an
additional service is Vodafone, who route voice calls
Do you mean calls to a geographic number? Vodafone is perhaps an unusual >>> telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines.
Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when
they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to
offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who
had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product,
but again didn't install landline phones previously either. I suspect
that BT would like to see the back of geographic numbers entirely (for
consumers, anyway), and not just the associated copper, which can't
help.
I meant my regular Vodafone cellular telephone number.
But don't all mobile phone companies route voice calls to the handsets? Seems like a fairly fundamental requirement.
It is effectively a
service in addition to the tcp/ip connection.
Most people would regard the tcp/ip service as "additional to the voice calls".
Compare to my cellular enabled iPad. For reasons only known to Apple,
iPads canrCOt make or receive cellular calls even if fitted with a
cellular modem.
Apple have always been weird. ISTR they didn't like people
sending/receiving SMS over the in-built cellular modem either.
My iPad has a mobile eSIM, so the cellular provider is only supplying
a dumb pipe - the thing telcos dreaded.
They need to take that up with Apple, bacuse if you could receive voice calls to the eSIM's number, that would have revenue associated with it.
On 16/08/2025 11:08, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Vodafone is perhaps an unusual
telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines.
Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when
they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to
offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who
had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product,
but again didn't install landline phones previously either.
In what sense was Vodafone unusual, if EE and O2 also didnrCOt offer
landlines?
O2 was originally BT Cellnet IIRC so landlines wee available.
Temporary cell coverage for an event is not a new idea, IIRC it was
first developed for events like Glastonbury back in the 1990s.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> and others wrote:
Starlink, for example, goes to great lengths to geolocate the >>>>>public IP address of its users.
Going further off topic I was at a small country show last weekend where >mobile signal was atrocious over all networks ,many merchants could not use >their card payment terminals as a result.
One bric a brac stall had an item I would have liked to purchase but it >exceeded the amount of cash I had taken but the trader did have his bank >account details so we could have done a direct transfer except though the >poor signal got me to my account it would not allow anything else to be >done.
I tried WIFI to see if any open ones were available but there were no
public ones , except for a minute or so one called STARLINK appeared and >actually worked well on a couple of websites but I wasnrCOt too sure about >its security so decided not to do the banking through it.
AFAIK my phone a fairly old IPhone cannot access the system, so what was
it , someone with an actual device that could and mistakenly left it >accessible to all is my guess , later it had the padlock symbol and asked
for the code.
In this day and age not arranging for a decent mobile signal or public WIFI >coverage seems a bit short sited
especially if you want small traders to rent a plot. The Committee and >Members Tent had a hotspot but it was secured.--
GH
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Vodafone is perhaps an unusual
telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines.
Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when
they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to
offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who
had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product,
but again didn't install landline phones previously either.
In what sense was Vodafone unusual, if EE and O2 also didnrCOt offer >landlines?
On 16/08/2025 12:07, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <107pejh$1jj4p$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:13:37 on Sat, 16 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107p8ml$1ib4d$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:32:53 on Sat, 16 Aug >>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 20:38:17 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:I suspect an underlying inability to be sure of a usable data
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
According to Recliner-a <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
Suppose IrCOm on a ship, much too far from land to get any >>>>>>>>>>>> phone signal. But-a the ship has decent Musklink WiFi, so would I >>>>>>>>>>>> be able to make WiFi calls-a using my mobile phone?-a Where would >>>>>>>>>>>> my phone company think IrCOm calling-a from, and bill the call as >>>>>>>>>>>> if I was there?-a And would there be too much-a latency on the >>>>>>>>>>>> line
to hold a normal conversation?
Starlink's latecy is about 50ms which is fine for VoIP.
OK, thatrCOs good.
Your phone would connect over the WiFi to your mobile provider's >>>>>>>>>>> VoIP server so I expect your call would appear to be coming from >>>>>>>>>>> the UK.
Why the UK?-a The ship isnrCOt UK-owned or registered.
You pay the ship whatever you pay for the ship wifi,
Nothing
you pay your mobile carrier whatever you usually pay for a call, >>>>>>>>>>> probably nothing if the call is in your monthly minute bundle. >>>>>>>>>>My concern would be if the shiprCOs, say, US-owned. It might >>>>>>>>>> appear that I
was calling from the US, and be charged that way, which could be >>>>>>>>>> expensive.
Seems o2 block WiFi calling when abroad as well.
https://www.o2.co.uk/help/international-and-network/wifi/wifi-and-4g >>>>>>>>>
Can I use WiFi and 4G Calling to make calls abroad?
WiFi Calling is not currently supported outside of the UK. In >>>>>>>>> certain
circumstances, however, it may be possible to enable WiFi
Calling when
abroad. Where used, additional charges will apply.
connection in foreign parts, "certain circumstances" translating as >>>>>>>> "if you are lucky enough to get one".
I think itrCOs more down to the fact that the local cellular telco >>>>>>> would be
bypassed, and thus roaming revenue would be lost. (Revenue between >>>>>>> foreign
and uk carrier at the wholesale level, not the consumer facing
charges).
Way back in the 1990s some folks in the states set up an experiment >>>>>> (the
TPC.INT DNS domain; see RFC 1486 and successors) which advertised a >>>>>> way of
sending email to a fax machine.-a It really relied on free local calls, >>>>>> which at the time was rare outside the US and possibly Canada, and >>>>>> also on
the forebearance of the PTTs, whose revenue would have been hit and >>>>>> some of
whom were involved in the IETF process.-a The term rCLglobal bypassrCY >>>>>> was being
bandied about.
It would be an understatement to say that things have changed since >>>>>> then.
Sam
Indeed. Telcos have been trying to push water uphill since the public >>>>> Internet was invented. TheyrCOve been terrified of being turned into >>>>> what is
termed a provider of a dumb pipe - ie just providing a tcp/ip
connection
and not much else. Now with the impending demise of landline
telephones I
think we have finally reached that point. Perhaps the only provider >>>>> of an
additional service is Vodafone, who route voice calls
Do you mean calls to a geographic number? Vodafone is perhaps an unusual >>>> telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines.
Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when
they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to >>>> offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who >>>> had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product, >>>> but again didn't install landline phones previously either. I suspect
that BT would like to see the back of geographic numbers entirely (for >>>> consumers, anyway), and not just the associated copper, which can't
help.
I meant my regular Vodafone cellular telephone number.
But don't all mobile phone companies route voice calls to the handsets?
Seems like a fairly fundamental requirement.
It is effectively a
service in addition to the tcp/ip connection.
Most people would regard the tcp/ip service as "additional to the voice
calls".
Compare to my cellular enabled iPad. For reasons only known to Apple,
iPads canrCOt make or receive cellular calls even if fitted with a
cellular modem.
Apple have always been weird. ISTR they didn't like people
sending/receiving SMS over the in-built cellular modem either.
My iPad has a mobile eSIM, so the cellular provider is only supplying
a dumb pipe - the thing telcos dreaded.
They need to take that up with Apple, bacuse if you could receive voice
calls to the eSIM's number, that would have revenue associated with it.
It's bad enough with people insisting on using their phones on speaker
in public without them using tablets for voice calls as well.
Most people would regard the tcp/ip service as "additional to the voiceNot youngsters. Most barely use the cellular voice function, and SMS is now >old hat with them. Pretty much all interaction is via over the top
calls".
services.
In message <107phjg$1k33r$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:04:48 on Sat, 16 Aug
2025, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
Temporary cell coverage for an event is not a new idea, IIRC it was
first developed for events like Glastonbury back in the 1990s.
Goes back long before that. I was a telecoms trade show at the NEC
around the time Orange launched, and they were able to demonstrate
things like SMS (which was new to most people at the time). What they
didn't say was the service came from a trailer parked outside the
exhibition hall.
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/08/2025 11:08, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Vodafone is perhaps an unusual
telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines.
Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when
they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to >>>> offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who >>>> had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product, >>>> but again didn't install landline phones previously either.
In what sense was Vodafone unusual, if EE and O2 also didnrCOt offer
landlines?
O2 was originally BT Cellnet IIRC so landlines wee available.
BT obviously offered landlines, but did the post-BT O2 ever do so? Did
even BT Cellnet offer its own branded landlines?
On 16/08/2025 12:13, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <107phjg$1k33r$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:04:48 on Sat, 16
Aug 2025, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
Temporary cell coverage for an event is not a new idea, IIRC it was >>>first developed for events like Glastonbury back in the 1990s.
Goes back long before that. I was a telecoms trade show at the NEC >>around the time Orange launched, and they were able to demonstrate
things like SMS (which was new to most people at the time). What they >>didn't say was the service came from a trailer parked outside the >>exhibition hall.
Orange launched about 1994 in UK.
They had a partnership with Glastonbury to provide mobile charging >facilities.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/08/2025 11:08, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Vodafone is perhaps an unusual
telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines.
Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when >>>>> they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to >>>>> offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who >>>>> had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product, >>>>> but again didn't install landline phones previously either.
In what sense was Vodafone unusual, if EE and O2 also didnrCOt offer
landlines?
O2 was originally BT Cellnet IIRC so landlines wee available.
BT obviously offered landlines, but did the post-BT O2 ever do so? Did
even BT Cellnet offer its own branded landlines?
O2 does at the moment because they are now VMO2, and the VM bit still
pushes landlines. They have the odd situation *still* where the monthly
cost is lower if you take phone service via your cable modem in addition to >broadband, than just plain broadband. Even if you never plug in a phone.
VMO2 also have some legacy analogue landline, where the twisted pair comes >into the house alongside the coax cable. It gets turned into digits in the >nearby street cabinet.
Vodafone offers landlines via their routers connected to their FTTP/C >service. Really just an over the top VOIP service, which is what BT is now >pushing with their digital voice product.
But in reality I expect these domestic VOIP services will die out along
side the oldies that use them.
In message <107pr4n$1lf0f$4@dont-email.me>, at 12:47:35 on Sat, 16 Aug
2025, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 16/08/2025 12:13, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <107phjg$1k33r$2@dont-email.me>, at 10:04:48 on Sat, 16
Aug-a 2025, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
Temporary cell coverage for an event is not a new idea, IIRC it was
first developed for events like Glastonbury back in the 1990s.
-aGoes back long before that. I was a telecoms trade show at the NEC
around the time Orange launched, and they were able to demonstrate
things like SMS (which was new to most people at the time). What they
didn't say was the service came from a trailer parked outside the
exhibition hall.
Orange launched about 1994 in UK.
28th April. I'd had a free-issue phone as a journalist who had rushed
their swap for a Rabbit, for a couple of months. They let me pick a good number too, which I still have.
They had a partnership with Glastonbury to provide mobile charging
facilities.
And mobile connectivity? In 1994 my house about two miles from the M40
in Oxfordshire had no Orange coverage.
In message <107proi$1mfo1$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:58:10 on Sat, 16 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/08/2025 11:08, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Vodafone is perhaps an unusual
telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines. >>>>>> Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when >>>>>> they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to >>>>>> offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who >>>>>> had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product, >>>>>> but again didn't install landline phones previously either.
In what sense was Vodafone unusual, if EE and O2 also didnrCOt offer >>>>> landlines?
O2 was originally BT Cellnet IIRC so landlines wee available.
BT obviously offered landlines, but did the post-BT O2 ever do so? Did
even BT Cellnet offer its own branded landlines?
O2 does at the moment because they are now VMO2, and the VM bit still
pushes landlines. They have the odd situation *still* where the monthly
cost is lower if you take phone service via your cable modem in addition to >> broadband, than just plain broadband. Even if you never plug in a phone.
VMO2 also have some legacy analogue landline, where the twisted pair comes >> into the house alongside the coax cable. It gets turned into digits in the >> nearby street cabinet.
Vodafone offers landlines via their routers connected to their FTTP/C
service. Really just an over the top VOIP service, which is what BT is now >> pushing with their digital voice product.
But in reality I expect these domestic VOIP services will die out along
side the oldies that use them.
There's definitely a shift from geographic numbering to mobiles, but I'm sure a lot of the public still regard (eg) a taxi company with a mobile number as a bit suspect. I've recently kitted out a pub with a local geographic number (VoIP) for people to ring to make bookings, rather
than calling a mobile phone number which might be for a handset the
barman today didn't get handed over from the barman yesterday.
In message <ZMYnQ.58$cWVe.16@fx11.ams1>, at 10:08:57 on Sat, 16 Aug
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Vodafone is perhaps an unusual
telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines.
Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when
they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to
offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who
had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product,
but again didn't install landline phones previously either.
In what sense was Vodafone unusual, if EE and O2 also didnrCOt offer >>landlines?
EE and O2 (and precursors) were subsidiaries of legacy telcos which did >install landlines.
Vodafone has always been independent.--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
One of the biggest UK corporate mistakes in recent history that rarely gets mentioned was BT spinning off cellnet to concentrate on landlines just when mobile usages was taking off. Then to cap it all they sold it entirely in 2005.
10 years later they had to pay a fortune for EE to play catch up.
I'm amazed BT still exists given the utter fuckwits who've run it over the years.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107proi$1mfo1$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:58:10 on Sat, 16 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/08/2025 11:08, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Vodafone is perhaps an unusual
telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines. >>>>>>> Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when >>>>>>> they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to >>>>>>> offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who >>>>>>> had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product, >>>>>>> but again didn't install landline phones previously either.
In what sense was Vodafone unusual, if EE and O2 also didnrCOt offer >>>>>> landlines?
O2 was originally BT Cellnet IIRC so landlines wee available.
BT obviously offered landlines, but did the post-BT O2 ever do so? Did >>>> even BT Cellnet offer its own branded landlines?
O2 does at the moment because they are now VMO2, and the VM bit still
pushes landlines. They have the odd situation *still* where the monthly
cost is lower if you take phone service via your cable modem in addition to >>> broadband, than just plain broadband. Even if you never plug in a phone. >>> VMO2 also have some legacy analogue landline, where the twisted pair comes >>> into the house alongside the coax cable. It gets turned into digits in the >>> nearby street cabinet.
Vodafone offers landlines via their routers connected to their FTTP/C
service. Really just an over the top VOIP service, which is what BT is now >>> pushing with their digital voice product.
But in reality I expect these domestic VOIP services will die out along
side the oldies that use them.
There's definitely a shift from geographic numbering to mobiles, but I'm
sure a lot of the public still regard (eg) a taxi company with a mobile
number as a bit suspect. I've recently kitted out a pub with a local
geographic number (VoIP) for people to ring to make bookings, rather
than calling a mobile phone number which might be for a handset the
barman today didn't get handed over from the barman yesterday.
Er. I said domestic VOIP services would die out. Nothing to do with a pub.
On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 12:16:39 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ZMYnQ.58$cWVe.16@fx11.ams1>, at 10:08:57 on Sat, 16 Aug
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Vodafone is perhaps an unusual
telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines.
Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when
they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to >>>> offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who >>>> had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product, >>>> but again didn't install landline phones previously either.
In what sense was Vodafone unusual, if EE and O2 also didnrCOt offer >>>landlines?
EE and O2 (and precursors) were subsidiaries of legacy telcos which did >>install landlines.
Did T-Mobile install UK landlines? What about Orange UK?
In message <ie11ak134ikd77t2spigt3jgmhd3nmt1kr@4ax.com>, at 14:22:39 on
Sat, 16 Aug 2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 12:16:39 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <ZMYnQ.58$cWVe.16@fx11.ams1>, at 10:08:57 on Sat, 16 Aug
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Vodafone is perhaps an unusual
telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines.
Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when >>>>> they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to >>>>> offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who >>>>> had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product, >>>>> but again didn't install landline phones previously either.
In what sense was Vodafone unusual, if EE and O2 also didnrCOt offer
landlines?
EE and O2 (and precursors) were subsidiaries of legacy telcos which did
install landlines.
Did T-Mobile install UK landlines? What about Orange UK?
From time to time (the ownership has repeatedly changed) their parent companies installed landlines.
And as neither of those network providers still exist in that form, it's
a bit difficult to compare them to Vodafone's 2025 offering (which does include porting in geographic numbers).
My iPad has a mobile eSIM, so the cellular provider is only supplying a >>dumb pipe - the thing telcos dreaded.
They need to take that up with Apple, bacuse if you could receive voice >calls to the eSIM's number, that would have revenue associated with it.
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/08/2025 11:08, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Vodafone is perhaps an unusual
telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines.
Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when >>>>> they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to >>>>> offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who >>>>> had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product, >>>>> but again didn't install landline phones previously either.
In what sense was Vodafone unusual, if EE and O2 also didnrCOt offer
landlines?
O2 was originally BT Cellnet IIRC so landlines wee available.
BT obviously offered landlines, but did the post-BT O2 ever do so? Did
even BT Cellnet offer its own branded landlines?
O2 does at the moment because they are now VMO2, and the VM bit still
pushes landlines. They have the odd situation *still* where the monthly
cost is lower if you take phone service via your cable modem in addition to broadband, than just plain broadband. Even if you never plug in a phone.
VMO2 also have some legacy analogue landline, where the twisted pair comes into the house alongside the coax cable. It gets turned into digits in the nearby street cabinet.
Vodafone offers landlines via their routers connected to their FTTP/C service. Really just an over the top VOIP service, which is what BT is now pushing with their digital voice product.
But in reality I expect these domestic VOIP services will die out along
side the oldies that use them.
Maybe so, but I find landlines are much higher quality - even the new
VoIP phones are easier to hear than a mobile.
On 16/08/2025 12:58, Tweed wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/08/2025 11:08, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Vodafone is perhaps an unusual
telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines. >>>>>> Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when >>>>>> they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to >>>>>> offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who >>>>>> had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product, >>>>>> but again didn't install landline phones previously either.
In what sense was Vodafone unusual, if EE and O2 also didnrCOt offer >>>>> landlines?
O2 was originally BT Cellnet IIRC so landlines wee available.
BT obviously offered landlines, but did the post-BT O2 ever do so? Did
even BT Cellnet offer its own branded landlines?
O2 does at the moment because they are now VMO2, and the VM bit still
pushes landlines. They have the odd situation *still* where the monthly
cost is lower if you take phone service via your cable modem in addition to >> broadband, than just plain broadband. Even if you never plug in a phone.
VMO2 also have some legacy analogue landline, where the twisted pair comes >> into the house alongside the coax cable. It gets turned into digits in the >> nearby street cabinet.
Vodafone offers landlines via their routers connected to their FTTP/C
service. Really just an over the top VOIP service, which is what BT is now >> pushing with their digital voice product.
But in reality I expect these domestic VOIP services will die out along
side the oldies that use them.
Maybe so, but I find landlines are much higher quality - even the new
VoIP phones are easier to hear than a mobile.
Vodafone is perhaps an unusual
telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines. >>>>>> Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when >>>>>> they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to >>>>>> offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who >>>>>> had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product, >>>>>> but again didn't install landline phones previously either.
In what sense was Vodafone unusual, if EE and O2 also didnrCOt offer >>>>> landlines?
EE and O2 (and precursors) were subsidiaries of legacy telcos which did >>>> install landlines.
Did T-Mobile install UK landlines? What about Orange UK?
From time to time (the ownership has repeatedly changed) their parent
companies installed landlines.
And as neither of those network providers still exist in that form, it's
a bit difficult to compare them to Vodafone's 2025 offering (which does
include porting in geographic numbers).
We were talking about your statement that, rCLbecause historically it only >offered mobiles, not landlinesrCY. So I was duly referring to what happened >historically, not today.
On Sat, 16 Aug 2025 22:16:30 +0100, ColinR <rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/08/2025 12:58, Tweed wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/08/2025 11:08, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Vodafone is perhaps an unusual
telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines. >>>>>>> Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when >>>>>>> they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to >>>>>>> offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who >>>>>>> had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product, >>>>>>> but again didn't install landline phones previously either.
In what sense was Vodafone unusual, if EE and O2 also didnrCOt offer >>>>>> landlines?
O2 was originally BT Cellnet IIRC so landlines wee available.
BT obviously offered landlines, but did the post-BT O2 ever do so? Did >>>> even BT Cellnet offer its own branded landlines?
O2 does at the moment because they are now VMO2, and the VM bit still
pushes landlines. They have the odd situation *still* where the monthly
cost is lower if you take phone service via your cable modem in addition to >>> broadband, than just plain broadband. Even if you never plug in a phone. >>> VMO2 also have some legacy analogue landline, where the twisted pair comes >>> into the house alongside the coax cable. It gets turned into digits in the >>> nearby street cabinet.
Vodafone offers landlines via their routers connected to their FTTP/C
service. Really just an over the top VOIP service, which is what BT is now >>> pushing with their digital voice product.
But in reality I expect these domestic VOIP services will die out along
side the oldies that use them.
Maybe so, but I find landlines are much higher quality - even the new
VoIP phones are easier to hear than a mobile.
My VoIP connected phone is much better now than when it was connected via
a landline. It's also better than a mobile
phone.
In message <yy1oQ.92$6531.28@fx15.ams1>, at 15:34:54 on Sat, 16 Aug
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Vodafone is perhaps an unusual
telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines. >>>>>>> Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when >>>>>>> they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to >>>>>>> offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who >>>>>>> had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product, >>>>>>> but again didn't install landline phones previously either.
In what sense was Vodafone unusual, if EE and O2 also didnrCOt offer >>>>>> landlines?
EE and O2 (and precursors) were subsidiaries of legacy telcos which did >>>>> install landlines.
Did T-Mobile install UK landlines? What about Orange UK?
From time to time (the ownership has repeatedly changed) their parent
companies installed landlines.
And as neither of those network providers still exist in that form, it's >>> a bit difficult to compare them to Vodafone's 2025 offering (which does
include porting in geographic numbers).
We were talking about your statement that, rCLbecause historically it only >> offered mobiles, not landlinesrCY. So I was duly referring to what happened >> historically, not today.
Which prove my point that only Vodafone of today's mobile brands has not offered landlines as part of their holding company's offering.
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
I suspect an underlying inability to be sure of a usable data
connection in foreign parts, "certain circumstances" translating as
"if you are lucky enough to get one".
I think itrCOs more down to the fact that the local cellular telco would be bypassed, and thus roaming revenue would be lost. (Revenue between foreign and uk carrier at the wholesale level, not the consumer facing charges).
In message <yy1oQ.92$6531.28@fx15.ams1>, at 15:34:54 on Sat, 16 Aug
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Vodafone is perhaps an unusual
telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines. >>>>>>> Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when >>>>>>> they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to >>>>>>> offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who >>>>>>> had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product, >>>>>>> but again didn't install landline phones previously either.
In what sense was Vodafone unusual, if EE and O2 also didnrCOt offer >>>>>> landlines?
EE and O2 (and precursors) were subsidiaries of legacy telcos which did >>>>> install landlines.
Did T-Mobile install UK landlines? What about Orange UK?
From time to time (the ownership has repeatedly changed) their parent
companies installed landlines.
And as neither of those network providers still exist in that form, it's >>> a bit difficult to compare them to Vodafone's 2025 offering (which does
include porting in geographic numbers).
We were talking about your statement that, rCLbecause historically it only >> offered mobiles, not landlinesrCY. So I was duly referring to what happened >> historically, not today.
Which prove my point that only Vodafone of today's mobile brands has not offered landlines as part of their holding company's offering.
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 18:40:42 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 09:43:08 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
I think it requires more than a lightbulb to illuminate the totally >>>confused ideas you have.Back when it was possible to make calls via the Wi-Fi on the
Underground there was notjing in my billing that suggested anything
about the intervention of a third party in the process. AFAIAA the >>Wi-Fi/internet path is merely an insertion into the path between the
'phone and the first entry point to the mobile system.
They don't need to bill for the wifi usage - its a complementary service that >you pay for via your ticket.
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 16:11:43 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:Querying opening hours ?
On 14/08/2025 14:38, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <107keki$e3np$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:43:30 on Thu, 14 Aug >>>>> 2025, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
On 14/08/2025 10:39, Roland Perry wrote:
Old industry, like the government, NHS, banking etc still make almost >>>>>>> exclusive use of traditional voice calls.
That will be why virtually all of my interactions with government, NHS >>>>>> and banks is by message
Using which platform? I've not yet encountered my taxman embracing
WhatsApp or Facebook messenger, for example.
Good old-fashioned email.
My GP has email, but:
?For confidentiality reasons please note that no medical correspondence or >>> requests for appointments or prescriptions can be accepted through the
Practice email address.?
I?m trying hard to think what interactions I have with my GP that that
doesn?t cover.
Published on the web site that contains the above message.
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 18:40:42 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 09:43:08 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
I think it requires more than a lightbulb to illuminate the totallyBack when it was possible to make calls via the Wi-Fi on the
confused ideas you have.
Underground there was notjing in my billing that suggested anything
about the intervention of a third party in the process. AFAIAA the
Wi-Fi/internet path is merely an insertion into the path between the
'phone and the first entry point to the mobile system.
They don't need to bill for the wifi usage - its a complementary service that you pay for via your ticket.
<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2025 18:40:42 +0100
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> gabbled:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 09:43:08 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
I think it requires more than a lightbulb to illuminate the totallyBack when it was possible to make calls via the Wi-Fi on the
confused ideas you have.
Underground there was notjing in my billing that suggested anything
about the intervention of a third party in the process. AFAIAA the
Wi-Fi/internet path is merely an insertion into the path between the
'phone and the first entry point to the mobile system.
They don't need to bill for the wifi usage - its a complementary service that
you pay for via your ticket.
IrCOm not sure if itrCOs still available, now that 4G is being rolled out, but
in any case, it was a complimentary (not complementary) service paid for by the mobile phone companies, not TfL. I think you needed to be a subscriber
to a UK mobile phone company to access it.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <yy1oQ.92$6531.28@fx15.ams1>, at 15:34:54 on Sat, 16 Aug
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Vodafone is perhaps an unusual
telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines. >>>>>>>> Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when >>>>>>>> they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to
offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who
had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product,
but again didn't install landline phones previously either.
In what sense was Vodafone unusual, if EE and O2 also didnrCOt offer >>>>>>> landlines?
EE and O2 (and precursors) were subsidiaries of legacy telcos which did >>>>>> install landlines.
Did T-Mobile install UK landlines? What about Orange UK?
From time to time (the ownership has repeatedly changed) their parent
companies installed landlines.
And as neither of those network providers still exist in that form, it's >>>> a bit difficult to compare them to Vodafone's 2025 offering (which does >>>> include porting in geographic numbers).
We were talking about your statement that, rCLbecause historically it only >>> offered mobiles, not landlinesrCY. So I was duly referring to what happened
historically, not today.
Which prove my point that only Vodafone of today's mobile brands has not
offered landlines as part of their holding company's offering.
Even today Vodafone UK does not provide any physical lines for domestic >(international is not the opposite in this context) users.
Their broadband offering is supplied over either Open Reach or City
Fibre wires or fibres. If you have their broadband service you can have
a VoIP service via the router and thus a rCLgeographicrCY number.
Vodafone does provide a lot of governmental services, so maybe there are
some VF owned physical circuits for some of that.
Vodafone is perhaps an unusual
telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines. >>>>>>>> Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when >>>>>>>> they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to
offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who
had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product,
but again didn't install landline phones previously either.
In what sense was Vodafone unusual, if EE and O2 also didnrCOt offer >>>>>>> landlines?
EE and O2 (and precursors) were subsidiaries of legacy telcos which did >>>>>> install landlines.
Did T-Mobile install UK landlines? What about Orange UK?
From time to time (the ownership has repeatedly changed) their parent
companies installed landlines.
And as neither of those network providers still exist in that form, it's >>>> a bit difficult to compare them to Vodafone's 2025 offering (which does >>>> include porting in geographic numbers).
We were talking about your statement that, rCLbecause historically it only >>> offered mobiles, not landlinesrCY. So I was duly referring to what happened
historically, not today.
Which prove my point that only Vodafone of today's mobile brands has not
offered landlines as part of their holding company's offering.
I think what yourCOre actually saying is that Vodafone remains an independent >company, whereas the other UK mobile vendors are owned by much larger >companies that offer a variety of other services.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107proi$1mfo1$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:58:10 on Sat, 16 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
On 16/08/2025 11:08, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
Vodafone is perhaps an unusual
telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines. >>>>>>> Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when >>>>>>> they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to >>>>>>> offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who >>>>>>> had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product, >>>>>>> but again didn't install landline phones previously either.
In what sense was Vodafone unusual, if EE and O2 also didnrCOt offer >>>>>> landlines?
O2 was originally BT Cellnet IIRC so landlines wee available.
BT obviously offered landlines, but did the post-BT O2 ever do so? Did >>>> even BT Cellnet offer its own branded landlines?
O2 does at the moment because they are now VMO2, and the VM bit still
pushes landlines. They have the odd situation *still* where the monthly
cost is lower if you take phone service via your cable modem in addition to >>> broadband, than just plain broadband. Even if you never plug in a phone. >>> VMO2 also have some legacy analogue landline, where the twisted pair comes >>> into the house alongside the coax cable. It gets turned into digits in the >>> nearby street cabinet.
Vodafone offers landlines via their routers connected to their FTTP/C
service. Really just an over the top VOIP service, which is what BT is now >>> pushing with their digital voice product.
But in reality I expect these domestic VOIP services will die out along
side the oldies that use them.
There's definitely a shift from geographic numbering to mobiles, but I'm
sure a lot of the public still regard (eg) a taxi company with a mobile
number as a bit suspect. I've recently kitted out a pub with a local
geographic number (VoIP) for people to ring to make bookings, rather
than calling a mobile phone number which might be for a handset the
barman today didn't get handed over from the barman yesterday.
Er. I said domestic VOIP services would die out. Nothing to do with a pub.
In message <107s0ih$25k4l$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:32:33 on Sun, 17 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <yy1oQ.92$6531.28@fx15.ams1>, at 15:34:54 on Sat, 16 Aug
2025, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
Vodafone is perhaps an unusual
telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines. >>>>>>>>> Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when >>>>>>>>> they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to
offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who
had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product,
but again didn't install landline phones previously either.
In what sense was Vodafone unusual, if EE and O2 also didnrCOt offer >>>>>>>> landlines?
EE and O2 (and precursors) were subsidiaries of legacy telcos which did >>>>>>> install landlines.
Did T-Mobile install UK landlines? What about Orange UK?
From time to time (the ownership has repeatedly changed) their parent >>>>> companies installed landlines.
And as neither of those network providers still exist in that form, it's >>>>> a bit difficult to compare them to Vodafone's 2025 offering (which does >>>>> include porting in geographic numbers).
We were talking about your statement that, rCLbecause historically it only >>>> offered mobiles, not landlinesrCY. So I was duly referring to what happened
historically, not today.
Which prove my point that only Vodafone of today's mobile brands has not >>> offered landlines as part of their holding company's offering.
Even today Vodafone UK does not provide any physical lines for domestic
(international is not the opposite in this context) users.
I agree, they didn't back in the day, and don't now.
Their broadband offering is supplied over either Open Reach or City
Fibre wires or fibres. If you have their broadband service you can have
a VoIP service via the router and thus a rCLgeographicrCY number.
A difference seems to be they appear to encourage the porting in of such geographic numbers whereas other telcos discourage it.
Vodafone does provide a lot of governmental services, so maybe there are
some VF owned physical circuits for some of that.
That's the C&W legacy.
[snippage]
The local cellular network is still involved in WiFi calling; when your
SIM connects to a local cell - even while roaming - the network will
tell it which endpoints to connect to for things like VoLTE and VoWiFi calls, and that will be essentially a fake 'cell' (a GAN) belonging to
the roaming partner*, that injects your call into the cell network.
Remember, one of the requirements of VoWIFI is that your call can
continue uninterrupted when you wander out of the range of the WiFi
you're using and switch back to a traditional cellular connection or vice-versa; the local cellular network has to be 'involved' in the call setup for this to work.
Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> wrote:
[snippage]
The local cellular network is still involved in WiFi calling; when your
SIM connects to a local cell - even while roaming - the network will
tell it which endpoints to connect to for things like VoLTE and VoWiFi
calls, and that will be essentially a fake 'cell' (a GAN) belonging to
the roaming partner*, that injects your call into the cell network.
Remember, one of the requirements of VoWIFI is that your call can
continue uninterrupted when you wander out of the range of the WiFi
you're using and switch back to a traditional cellular connection or
vice-versa; the local cellular network has to be 'involved' in the call
setup for this to work.
Thank you, thatrCOs very useful info. IrCOve never had occasion to try to maintain a call running on WiFi in the house out to the garage which isnrCOt covered, and had not quite got as far as experimenting, but now I might.
On 18/08/2025 17:44, Sam Wilson wrote:
Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> wrote:
[snippage]
The local cellular network is still involved in WiFi calling; when your
SIM connects to a local cell - even while roaming - the network will
tell it which endpoints to connect to for things like VoLTE and VoWiFi
calls, and that will be essentially a fake 'cell' (a GAN) belonging to
the roaming partner*, that injects your call into the cell network.
Remember, one of the requirements of VoWIFI is that your call can
continue uninterrupted when you wander out of the range of the WiFi
you're using and switch back to a traditional cellular connection or
vice-versa; the local cellular network has to be 'involved' in the call
setup for this to work.
Thank you, thatAs very useful info. IAve never had occasion to try to
maintain a call running on WiFi in the house out to the garage which isnAt >> covered, and had not quite got as far as experimenting, but now I might.
I know there have been problems with WiFi calls presenting a wildly >inaccurate location to emergency services if you make a 999/112 call
while connected to wifi and not mobile.
I wonder if the location is marked with a flag "do not trust this >information" if the phone is not connected to a real mobile phone mast,
so the operator knows to ask for the location verbally.
I suspect that if a phone has GPS turned on, a more accurate location is >given with a mobile-mast call than simple triangulation of masts can
give. When my wife once made a 999 call while I driving on the A1, to
report a car that appeared to have crashed into an embankment at the
edge of the road, the operator did not need to ask for location and he
said "I can see that you are about to pass the turning to Kirk Smeaton
[or wherever]" while suggests GPS type accuracy (circle of radius a few
tens of metres at worst) rather than triangulation accuracy which I >understand has a far larger circle of confusion.
Things have improved a lot since I made a 999 call on the M1 and the >operator did not know how to process the location given on the "M1 A
123.4" sign. It was in the days when I had a Nokia non-smart phone with
no GPS, so there was no way for a GPS location to be passed either >automatically or by asking me to stop and read the location from my
phone's GPS app. The operator was fixated on postcodes: on a section of
a motorway a long way from any houses, it is ludicrous to ask for a
postcode because unpopulated areas aren't allocated postcodes (or else
the postcode area is extremely large) and someone who is passing through >will not know the postcode. He also asked me which junction I had last >passed, which again was "no -ing idea": all I knew was that I was a long
way from the junctions that I had memorised for joining and leaving so I
had no reason to pay attention to junction number signs.
Things have improved a lot since I made a 999 call on the M1 and the >>operator did not know how to process the location given on the "M1 AEverywhere on a mainland or inhabited island in the UK has a
123.4" sign. It was in the days when I had a Nokia non-smart phone with
no GPS, so there was no way for a GPS location to be passed either >>automatically or by asking me to stop and read the location from my
phone's GPS app. The operator was fixated on postcodes: on a section of
a motorway a long way from any houses, it is ludicrous to ask for a >>postcode because unpopulated areas aren't allocated postcodes (or else
the postcode area is extremely large) and someone who is passing through >>will not know the postcode. He also asked me which junction I had last >>passed, which again was "no -ing idea": all I knew was that I was a long >>way from the junctions that I had memorised for joining and leaving so I >>had no reason to pay attention to junction number signs.
geographic postcode even though the only working delivery point might
be a single farm surrounded by dozens of miles of barren moorland. A
section of motorway will have a postcode but usually no delivery
points; WRT motorways, they are not within the intended context of a >postcode.
In message <4gi9akhjeru5jafp1utv4r5nmr3vmnrtno@4ax.com>, at 20:09:51 on
Tue, 19 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
Things have improved a lot since I made a 999 call on the M1 and the >>>operator did not know how to process the location given on the "M1 A >>>123.4" sign. It was in the days when I had a Nokia non-smart phone with >>>no GPS, so there was no way for a GPS location to be passed either >>>automatically or by asking me to stop and read the location from my >>>phone's GPS app. The operator was fixated on postcodes: on a section ofEverywhere on a mainland or inhabited island in the UK has a
a motorway a long way from any houses, it is ludicrous to ask for a >>>postcode because unpopulated areas aren't allocated postcodes (or else >>>the postcode area is extremely large) and someone who is passing through >>>will not know the postcode. He also asked me which junction I had last >>>passed, which again was "no -ing idea": all I knew was that I was a long >>>way from the junctions that I had memorised for joining and leaving so I >>>had no reason to pay attention to junction number signs.
geographic postcode even though the only working delivery point might
be a single farm surrounded by dozens of miles of barren moorland. A >>section of motorway will have a postcode but usually no delivery
points; WRT motorways, they are not within the intended context of a >>postcode.
ObRail: About 20yrs ago there was an incident at the carriage washer in
the sidings at Cambridge Station, and the emergency services were
severely hampered reaching it, because it doesn't have a postcode.
I know there have been problems with WiFi calls presenting a wildly >inaccurate location to emergency services if you make a 999/112 call
while connected to wifi and not mobile.
I wonder if the location is marked with a flag "do not trust this >information" if the phone is not connected to a real mobile phone mast,
so the operator knows to ask for the location verbally.
I suspect that if a phone has GPS turned on, a more accurate location
is given with a mobile-mast call than simple triangulation of masts can >give.
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 08:44:35 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <4gi9akhjeru5jafp1utv4r5nmr3vmnrtno@4ax.com>, at 20:09:51 on >>Tue, 19 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>CB1 7ED if it is via the entrance in Clifton Road.
remarked:
Things have improved a lot since I made a 999 call on the M1 and the >>>>operator did not know how to process the location given on the "M1 A >>>>123.4" sign. It was in the days when I had a Nokia non-smart phone with >>>>no GPS, so there was no way for a GPS location to be passed either >>>>automatically or by asking me to stop and read the location from my >>>>phone's GPS app. The operator was fixated on postcodes: on a section of >>>>a motorway a long way from any houses, it is ludicrous to ask for a >>>>postcode because unpopulated areas aren't allocated postcodes (or else >>>>the postcode area is extremely large) and someone who is passing through >>>>will not know the postcode. He also asked me which junction I had last >>>>passed, which again was "no -ing idea": all I knew was that I was a long >>>>way from the junctions that I had memorised for joining and leaving so I >>>>had no reason to pay attention to junction number signs.Everywhere on a mainland or inhabited island in the UK has a
geographic postcode even though the only working delivery point might
be a single farm surrounded by dozens of miles of barren moorland. A >>>section of motorway will have a postcode but usually no delivery
points; WRT motorways, they are not within the intended context of a >>>postcode.
ObRail: About 20yrs ago there was an incident at the carriage washer in
the sidings at Cambridge Station, and the emergency services were
severely hampered reaching it, because it doesn't have a postcode.
In message <107vo91$36u89$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:35:29 on Mon, 18 Aug
2025, NY <me@privacy.net> remarked:
I know there have been problems with WiFi calls presenting a wildly
inaccurate location to emergency services if you make a 999/112 call
while connected to wifi and not mobile.
The format of the location information is highly likely to reveal
whether it's on a mobile network, versus wifi. I'm not even sure what location they would present if on wifi. (Assuming it's not GPS location
in both cases)
I wonder if the location is marked with a flag "do not trust this
information" if the phone is not connected to a real mobile phone mast,
so the operator knows to ask for the location verbally.
I suspect that if a phone has GPS turned on, a more accurate location
is given with a mobile-mast call than simple triangulation of masts can
give.
GPS was originally added to phones to assist emergency vehicles locate
cars in the USA. Where the cells can be very large, and triangulation unreliable because the exact location of many rural masts had never been plotted.
The other uses of GPS, once smartphones had been introduced, is a by-product. Earliest non-emergency use was probably candybar
cameraphones tagging the location of photos.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107vo91$36u89$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:35:29 on Mon, 18 Aug
2025, NY <me@privacy.net> remarked:
I know there have been problems with WiFi calls presenting a wildly
inaccurate location to emergency services if you make a 999/112 call
while connected to wifi and not mobile.
The format of the location information is highly likely to reveal
whether it's on a mobile network, versus wifi. I'm not even sure what
location they would present if on wifi. (Assuming it's not GPS location
in both cases)
I wonder if the location is marked with a flag "do not trust this
information" if the phone is not connected to a real mobile phone mast,
so the operator knows to ask for the location verbally.
I suspect that if a phone has GPS turned on, a more accurate location
is given with a mobile-mast call than simple triangulation of masts can
give.
GPS was originally added to phones to assist emergency vehicles locate
cars in the USA. Where the cells can be very large, and triangulation
unreliable because the exact location of many rural masts had never been
plotted.
The other uses of GPS, once smartphones had been introduced, is a
by-product. Earliest non-emergency use was probably candybar
cameraphones tagging the location of photos.
WiFi these days can present very reliable and accurate location
information. Smartphones are continually updating this information. A phone >that has an accurate GPS fix can read the SSID and MAC address of any WiFi >base station within range. This information gets sent back to Google and >Apple to update their location databases.
There are some base stations that confound this system, eg a recently
moved router, or wifi on a train or ship. But these soon get flagged as >either I the wrong place or as continually moving location.
I suspect that if a phone has GPS turned on, a more accurate location
is given with a mobile-mast call than simple triangulation of masts
can give.
GPS was originally added to phones to assist emergency vehicles locate
cars in the USA. Where the cells can be very large, and triangulation unreliable because the exact location of many rural masts had never been plotted.
The other uses of GPS, once smartphones had been introduced, is a by- product. Earliest non-emergency use was probably candybar cameraphones tagging the location of photos.
In message <0incak1pc1e0uko80j972614c5buvhrtk6@4ax.com>, at 00:47:14 on
Thu, 21 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 08:44:35 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <4gi9akhjeru5jafp1utv4r5nmr3vmnrtno@4ax.com>, at 20:09:51 on >>>Tue, 19 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>CB1 7ED if it is via the entrance in Clifton Road.
remarked:
Things have improved a lot since I made a 999 call on the M1 and the >>>>>operator did not know how to process the location given on the "M1 A >>>>>123.4" sign. It was in the days when I had a Nokia non-smart phone with >>>>>no GPS, so there was no way for a GPS location to be passed either >>>>>automatically or by asking me to stop and read the location from my >>>>>phone's GPS app. The operator was fixated on postcodes: on a section of >>>>>a motorway a long way from any houses, it is ludicrous to ask for a >>>>>postcode because unpopulated areas aren't allocated postcodes (or else >>>>>the postcode area is extremely large) and someone who is passing through >>>>>will not know the postcode. He also asked me which junction I had last >>>>>passed, which again was "no -ing idea": all I knew was that I was a long >>>>>way from the junctions that I had memorised for joining and leaving so I >>>>>had no reason to pay attention to junction number signs.Everywhere on a mainland or inhabited island in the UK has a
geographic postcode even though the only working delivery point might >>>>be a single farm surrounded by dozens of miles of barren moorland. A >>>>section of motorway will have a postcode but usually no delivery >>>>points; WRT motorways, they are not within the intended context of a >>>>postcode.
ObRail: About 20yrs ago there was an incident at the carriage washer in >>>the sidings at Cambridge Station, and the emergency services were >>>severely hampered reaching it, because it doesn't have a postcode.
The problem they had was no-one at the station knew the postcode of the >entrance, which at the time might have been off Rustat Rd. There's been
a lot of new building in the mean time.
On 21/08/2025 10:43, Roland Perry wrote:
I suspect that if a phone has GPS turned on, a more accurate
location is given with a mobile-mast call than simple triangulation
of masts can give.
GPS was originally added to phones to assist emergency vehicles
locate cars in the USA. Where the cells can be very large, and >>triangulation unreliable because the exact location of many rural
masts had never been plotted.
The other uses of GPS, once smartphones had been introduced, is a
by- product. Earliest non-emergency use was probably candybar >>cameraphones tagging the location of photos.
This is, of course, complete nonsense.
Nobody was adding GPS to feature phones just for emergency calling.
What was done back in the day was adding GPS to mobile phone *masts* to >improve geolocation of emergency calls.
Mobile phone manufacturers had many good ideas what to do with GPS on
their phones long before it actually became a thing - I know this for a
fact because I authored patents in the mid 1990s on some of those
features. In fact the first mobile phone with GPS built in was more a
GPS with a phone built in (the Benefon ESC!) whose main feature was its >mapping capabilities, launched in 1999. (I hope they licensed my
patents ;-).)
The barrier to including GPS on regular handsets in those days wasn't a
lack of ideas or will, it was that GPS chipsets were typically a
minimum of 3 chips (because of the problems of mixing various frequency >domains on a single piece of silicon - a key area of research that the >people in the lab next door to mine were working on) and power-hungry
to boot. Once the techniques to put baseband and RF on a single piece
of silicon were perfected (by my colleagues ;)) and GPS chipsets came
down to first two and then ultimately one chip, it became practical to
put them in phones and implement the ideas - like mapping - that had
long been around.
In fact I can't find a single example of a phone released between 1999
and 2005 equipped with GPS but not capable of using it for, say,
mapping.
The FCC didn't mandate GPS on mobile devices to improve emergency
calling location accuracy until 2011 (effective from 2018), some four
years after the iPhone was released and at a time when almost all
phones already had it.
In message <10870vh$31e1j$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:46:58 on Thu, 21 Aug
2025, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
On 21/08/2025 10:43, Roland Perry wrote:
I suspect that if a phone has GPS turned on, a more accurate
location-a is given with a mobile-mast call than simple triangulation >>>> of masts-a can give.
-aGPS was originally added to phones to assist emergency vehicles
locate-a cars in the USA. Where the cells can be very large, and
triangulation-a unreliable because the exact location of many rural
masts had never been-a plotted.
-aThe other uses of GPS, once smartphones had been introduced, is a
by--a product. Earliest non-emergency use was probably candybar
cameraphones-a tagging the location of photos.
This is, of course, complete nonsense.
Hmm.
Nobody was adding GPS to feature phones just for emergency calling.
Except they did. It was a while ago, and I studied the matter in some
detail (it was around the time I was also writing about first generation wifi-calling).
What was done back in the day was adding GPS to mobile phone *masts*
to improve geolocation of emergency calls.
You don't need to *add* GPS to a mast, you just need to send someone out
to do a one-off survey. And get a proper location rather than "On top of
the third hill on the right, past Junction 50 on I45".
Mobile phone manufacturers had many good ideas what to do with GPS on
their phones long before it actually became a thing - I know this for
a fact because I authored patents in the mid 1990s on some of those
features.-a In fact the first mobile phone with GPS built in was more a
GPS with a phone built in (the Benefon ESC!) whose main feature was
its mapping capabilities, launched in 1999.-a (I hope they licensed my
patents ;-).)
The first phone I had with GPS in it was a cameraphone [C905/2008], and while it had a tiny screen and a very early version of Google Maps
(launched 2005), the only practical use for "mapping" was generating
EXIF information which some websites then used to pin the photo to a map
(on a desktop PC).
It certainly wasn't anything we'd recognise as a Satnav, and without
usable mobile data, they wouldn't have worked very well anyway.
The barrier to including GPS on regular handsets in those days wasn't
a lack of ideas or will, it was that GPS chipsets were typically a
minimum of 3 chips (because of the problems of mixing various
frequency domains on a single piece of silicon - a key area of
research that the people in the lab next door to mine were working on)
and power-hungry to boot. Once the techniques to put baseband and RF
on a single piece of silicon were perfected (by my colleagues ;)) and
GPS chipsets came down to first two and then ultimately one chip, it
became practical to put them in phones and implement the ideas - like
mapping - that had long been around.
I agree with the technological challenges, but it was the mandate to fit
all phones sold in USA with them (which in practice means all phones)
which spurred their inclusion.
As we are talking about candybar phones, they won't run mapping applications!
In fact I can't find a single example of a phone released between 1999
and 2005 equipped with GPS but not capable of using it for, say, mapping.
Using what, as a screen?
The FCC didn't mandate GPS on mobile devices to improve emergency
calling location accuracy until 2011 (effective from 2018), some four
years after the iPhone was released and at a time when almost all
phones already had it.
The only way to square that with reality is that the industry must have managed to stall the authorities for years because they didn't want
*every* *single* $10 candybar phone from Walmart to require it.
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 08:46:29 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <0incak1pc1e0uko80j972614c5buvhrtk6@4ax.com>, at 00:47:14 on >>Thu, 21 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>For practical purposes that is negligence by someone higher up the
remarked:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 08:44:35 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <4gi9akhjeru5jafp1utv4r5nmr3vmnrtno@4ax.com>, at 20:09:51 on >>>>Tue, 19 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> >>>>remarked:CB1 7ED if it is via the entrance in Clifton Road.
Things have improved a lot since I made a 999 call on the M1 and the >>>>>>operator did not know how to process the location given on the "M1 A >>>>>>123.4" sign. It was in the days when I had a Nokia non-smart phone with >>>>>>no GPS, so there was no way for a GPS location to be passed either >>>>>>automatically or by asking me to stop and read the location from my >>>>>>phone's GPS app. The operator was fixated on postcodes: on a section of >>>>>>a motorway a long way from any houses, it is ludicrous to ask for a >>>>>>postcode because unpopulated areas aren't allocated postcodes (or else >>>>>>the postcode area is extremely large) and someone who is passing through >>>>>>will not know the postcode. He also asked me which junction I had last >>>>>>passed, which again was "no -ing idea": all I knew was that I was a long >>>>>>way from the junctions that I had memorised for joining and leaving so I >>>>>>had no reason to pay attention to junction number signs.Everywhere on a mainland or inhabited island in the UK has a >>>>>geographic postcode even though the only working delivery point might >>>>>be a single farm surrounded by dozens of miles of barren moorland. A >>>>>section of motorway will have a postcode but usually no delivery >>>>>points; WRT motorways, they are not within the intended context of a >>>>>postcode.
ObRail: About 20yrs ago there was an incident at the carriage washer in >>>>the sidings at Cambridge Station, and the emergency services were >>>>severely hampered reaching it, because it doesn't have a postcode.
The problem they had was no-one at the station knew the postcode of the >>entrance, which at the time might have been off Rustat Rd. There's been
a lot of new building in the mean time.
management chain if they have failes to liaise with the emergency
services. On the face of it, it seems to be a breach of the Civil >Contingencies Act.
On 22/08/2025 11:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <10870vh$31e1j$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:46:58 on Thu, 21 Aug
2025, Clank <clank75@googlemail.com> remarked:
On 21/08/2025 10:43, Roland Perry wrote:
I suspect that if a phone has GPS turned on, a more accurate
location-a is given with a mobile-mast call than simple triangulation >>>>> of masts-a can give.
-aGPS was originally added to phones to assist emergency vehicles
locate-a cars in the USA. Where the cells can be very large, and
triangulation-a unreliable because the exact location of many rural
masts had never been-a plotted.
-aThe other uses of GPS, once smartphones had been introduced, is a
by--a product. Earliest non-emergency use was probably candybar
cameraphones-a tagging the location of photos.
This is, of course, complete nonsense.
Hmm.
Nobody was adding GPS to feature phones just for emergency calling.
Except they did. It was a while ago, and I studied the matter in some
detail (it was around the time I was also writing about first generation
wifi-calling).
What was done back in the day was adding GPS to mobile phone *masts*
to improve geolocation of emergency calls.
You don't need to *add* GPS to a mast, you just need to send someone out
to do a one-off survey. And get a proper location rather than "On top of
the third hill on the right, past Junction 50 on I45".
Mobile phone manufacturers had many good ideas what to do with GPS on
their phones long before it actually became a thing - I know this for
a fact because I authored patents in the mid 1990s on some of those
features.-a In fact the first mobile phone with GPS built in was more a >>> GPS with a phone built in (the Benefon ESC!) whose main feature was
its mapping capabilities, launched in 1999.-a (I hope they licensed my
patents ;-).)
The first phone I had with GPS in it was a cameraphone [C905/2008], and
while it had a tiny screen and a very early version of Google Maps
(launched 2005), the only practical use for "mapping" was generating
EXIF information which some websites then used to pin the photo to a map
(on a desktop PC).
It certainly wasn't anything we'd recognise as a Satnav, and without
usable mobile data, they wouldn't have worked very well anyway.
The barrier to including GPS on regular handsets in those days wasn't
a lack of ideas or will, it was that GPS chipsets were typically a
minimum of 3 chips (because of the problems of mixing various
frequency domains on a single piece of silicon - a key area of
research that the people in the lab next door to mine were working on)
and power-hungry to boot. Once the techniques to put baseband and RF
on a single piece of silicon were perfected (by my colleagues ;)) and
GPS chipsets came down to first two and then ultimately one chip, it
became practical to put them in phones and implement the ideas - like
mapping - that had long been around.
I agree with the technological challenges, but it was the mandate to fit
all phones sold in USA with them (which in practice means all phones)
which spurred their inclusion.
That is simply not true. For a start, in those days "phones sold in the USA" meant exactly "phones sold in the USA". Since the USA was
practically the only major market using the Qualcomm CDMA standard and
not GSM, what happened there had more or less zero impact on what
happened in other markets. Not including an unwanted GPS chip in a
non-US SKU would be absolutely the least of the changes.
But there was in any event no mandate to fit GPS to phones sold in the
USA until long after the technical challenges were solved and they were already being included.
There was an FCC ruling in the 90s (1996) that the operators had one
year in which to be able to report which *cell* an emergency call came
from, and within 5 years should be able to report the "latitude and
logitude of a mobile unit ... within a radius of no more than 125 meters
... in 67% of cases" (this was "E911 Phase 2"). In practice, that
benchmark was achievable with mast-based location services, and when
2001 rolled around the FCC granted permission for operators to use mast-based triangulation technology like AFLT (for CDMA networks) or
E-OTD (for GSM networks) to be compliant.
The reason A-GPS did win the day (and a decade later, became mandatory)
is because GPS units were *already starting to be included as a feature*
and network operators eventually realised it was easier, not because the
FCC required it. It didn't, until 2011.
You have made a classic correlation != causation error.
The FCC didn't drive the inclusion of GPS in phones. The inclusion of
GPS in phones drove FCC regulation, quite some time after E911 phase 2
was implemented WITHOUT a GPS mandate.
As we are talking about candybar phones, they won't run mapping
applications!
In fact I can't find a single example of a phone released between 1999Using what, as a screen?
and 2005 equipped with GPS but not capable of using it for, say, mapping. >>
The, uh, screen.
You seem to think all phones in those days had teleprinters for UIs. I
was writing the UI firmware for dot-addressable graphical displays in mobiles in, ohh, 1997 or thereabouts.
By the time the first GPS was put in a phone, full colour graphical
displays were not uncommon. Remember that iMode and WAP were both 90s technologies. I developed a web-browser (well, then HDML, which evolved into WAP/WML) for candybar mobile phones in must be 1998 at the latest,
and things like turn-by-turn directions were well within the capability
(it was already an exceedingly obvious use-case that we used in demos
and the like - TeleNav launched a WAP based turn-by-turn navigation
service in 2000)
The FCC didn't mandate GPS on mobile devices to improve emergency
calling location accuracy until 2011 (effective from 2018), some four
years after the iPhone was released and at a time when almost all
phones already had it.
The only way to square that with reality is that the industry must have
managed to stall the authorities for years because they didn't want
*every* *single* $10 candybar phone from Walmart to require it.
There is a much, much better way to square that with reality: You are simply wrong. Again.
In message <4ajeakh5plmisifqnc7bbk2v1u9l0oqppc@4ax.com>, at 17:54:12 on
Thu, 21 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 08:46:29 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <0incak1pc1e0uko80j972614c5buvhrtk6@4ax.com>, at 00:47:14 on >>>Thu, 21 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>For practical purposes that is negligence by someone higher up the >>management chain if they have failes to liaise with the emergency
remarked:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 08:44:35 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>wrote:
In message <4gi9akhjeru5jafp1utv4r5nmr3vmnrtno@4ax.com>, at 20:09:51 on >>>>>Tue, 19 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> >>>>>remarked:CB1 7ED if it is via the entrance in Clifton Road.
Things have improved a lot since I made a 999 call on the M1 and the >>>>>>>operator did not know how to process the location given on the "M1 A >>>>>>>123.4" sign. It was in the days when I had a Nokia non-smart phone with >>>>>>>no GPS, so there was no way for a GPS location to be passed either >>>>>>>automatically or by asking me to stop and read the location from my >>>>>>>phone's GPS app. The operator was fixated on postcodes: on a section of >>>>>>>a motorway a long way from any houses, it is ludicrous to ask for a >>>>>>>postcode because unpopulated areas aren't allocated postcodes (or else >>>>>>>the postcode area is extremely large) and someone who is passing through >>>>>>>will not know the postcode. He also asked me which junction I had last >>>>>>>passed, which again was "no -ing idea": all I knew was that I was a long >>>>>>>way from the junctions that I had memorised for joining and leaving so I >>>>>>>had no reason to pay attention to junction number signs.Everywhere on a mainland or inhabited island in the UK has a >>>>>>geographic postcode even though the only working delivery point might >>>>>>be a single farm surrounded by dozens of miles of barren moorland. A >>>>>>section of motorway will have a postcode but usually no delivery >>>>>>points; WRT motorways, they are not within the intended context of a >>>>>>postcode.
ObRail: About 20yrs ago there was an incident at the carriage washer in >>>>>the sidings at Cambridge Station, and the emergency services were >>>>>severely hampered reaching it, because it doesn't have a postcode.
The problem they had was no-one at the station knew the postcode of the >>>entrance, which at the time might have been off Rustat Rd. There's been
a lot of new building in the mean time.
services. On the face of it, it seems to be a breach of the Civil >>Contingencies Act.
I think you must mean the Civil Defence Act 1948 (the other Act hadn't
been written yet).
And it seems entirely reasonable to me that someone phoning 999 to get >attendance at an incident within the station sidings, shouldn't need to
know the postcode of distant houses they don't necessarily even know the >street-name of.
In message <107fb20$385qg$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:44 on Tue, 12 Aug
2025, NY <me@privacy.net> remarked:
I wonder what will happen long-term as POTS is phased out. Everyone
will need a DSL connection of some sort for their landline phone.
Why do people need a 'landline' phone? You don't even need it for a geographic (possibly legacy and well publicised) number. I have a
Cambridge number that's been delivered over IP since I first got it in around 2003.
What is the minimum data speed that will support VOIP?
There are probably different answers for different VoIP apps. As a
baseline, ISDN voice was coded at no more than 64k, and I think 2G voice
is more in the region of 10k. Just needs suitable codecs.
On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 15:21:09 +0100
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wibbled:
On 12/08/2025 13:36, Roland Perry wrote:
Why do people need a 'landline' phone?
Perhaps habit, I will always use my landline phone as first choice when
making a call.
Many places in the UK are still notspots for mobile phone reception. People there have little choice.
On 12/08/2025 13:36, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <107fb20$385qg$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:44 on Tue, 12 Aug
2025, NY <me@privacy.net> remarked:
I wonder what will happen long-term as POTS is phased out. Everyone
will need a DSL connection of some sort for their landline phone.
Why do people need a 'landline' phone? You don't even need it for a
geographic (possibly legacy and well publicised) number. I have a
Cambridge number that's been delivered over IP since I first got it in
around 2003.
I need a landline phone because my line is flagged as not suitable for conversion to FTTP and additionally mobile data is unusable for some of
the time.
On 12/08/2025 15:55, boltar@galactica.caprica wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 15:21:09 +0100To add insult to injury most of the mobile not spots in Wales coincide
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wibbled:
On 12/08/2025 13:36, Roland Perry wrote:
Why do people need a 'landline' phone?
Perhaps habit, I will always use my landline phone as first choice when
making a call.
Many places in the UK are still notspots for mobile phone reception. People >> there have little choice.
with dreadful broadband.
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 12/08/2025 15:55, boltar@galactica.caprica wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 15:21:09 +0100To add insult to injury most of the mobile not spots in Wales coincide
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wibbled:
On 12/08/2025 13:36, Roland Perry wrote:
Why do people need a 'landline' phone?
Perhaps habit, I will always use my landline phone as first choice when >>>> making a call.
Many places in the UK are still notspots for mobile phone reception. People >>> there have little choice.
with dreadful broadband.
Starlink?
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 12/08/2025 13:36, Roland Perry wrote:Completely impossible to bring in a fibre by a totally different route?
In message <107fb20$385qg$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:44 on Tue, 12 Aug
2025, NY <me@privacy.net> remarked:
I wonder what will happen long-term as POTS is phased out. Everyone
will need a DSL connection of some sort for their landline phone.
Why do people need a 'landline' phone? You don't even need it for a
geographic (possibly legacy and well publicised) number. I have a
Cambridge number that's been delivered over IP since I first got it in
around 2003.
I need a landline phone because my line is flagged as not suitable for
conversion to FTTP and additionally mobile data is unusable for some of
the time.
In message <107fikl$39tfh$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:21:09 on Tue, 12 Aug
2025, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> remarked:
On 12/08/2025 13:36, Roland Perry wrote:
Why do people need a 'landline' phone?
Perhaps habit, I will always use my landline phone as first choice when >making a call.
My landline number is delivered to a VoIP phone that's not often less
than 20ft away.
On 26/08/2025 08:30, Tweed wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:That's why the line is flagged.
On 12/08/2025 13:36, Roland Perry wrote:Completely impossible to bring in a fibre by a totally different route?
In message <107fb20$385qg$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:44 on Tue, 12 Aug >>>> 2025, NY <me@privacy.net> remarked:
I wonder what will happen long-term as POTS is phased out. Everyone
will need a DSL connection of some sort for their landline phone.
Why do people need a 'landline' phone? You don't even need it for a
geographic (possibly legacy and well publicised) number. I have a
Cambridge number that's been delivered over IP since I first got it in >>>> around 2003.
I need a landline phone because my line is flagged as not suitable for
conversion to FTTP and additionally mobile data is unusable for some of
the time.
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 26/08/2025 08:30, Tweed wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:That's why the line is flagged.
On 12/08/2025 13:36, Roland Perry wrote:Completely impossible to bring in a fibre by a totally different route?
In message <107fb20$385qg$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:44 on Tue, 12 Aug >>>>> 2025, NY <me@privacy.net> remarked:
I wonder what will happen long-term as POTS is phased out. Everyone >>>>>> will need a DSL connection of some sort for their landline phone.
Why do people need a 'landline' phone? You don't even need it for a
geographic (possibly legacy and well publicised) number. I have a
Cambridge number that's been delivered over IP since I first got it in >>>>> around 2003.
I need a landline phone because my line is flagged as not suitable for >>>> conversion to FTTP and additionally mobile data is unusable for some of >>>> the time.
No windows or walls facing the highway or other public right of way?
On 26/08/2025 17:29, Tweed wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 26/08/2025 08:30, Tweed wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:That's why the line is flagged.
On 12/08/2025 13:36, Roland Perry wrote:Completely impossible to bring in a fibre by a totally different route? >>>>
In message <107fb20$385qg$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:44 on Tue, 12 Aug >>>>>> 2025, NY <me@privacy.net> remarked:
I wonder what will happen long-term as POTS is phased out. Everyone >>>>>>> will need a DSL connection of some sort for their landline phone. >>>>>>Why do people need a 'landline' phone? You don't even need it for a >>>>>> geographic (possibly legacy and well publicised) number. I have a
Cambridge number that's been delivered over IP since I first got it in >>>>>> around 2003.
I need a landline phone because my line is flagged as not suitable for >>>>> conversion to FTTP and additionally mobile data is unusable for some of >>>>> the time.
No windows or walls facing the highway or other public right of way?
Openreach have powers to enforce wayleaves for access to properties. I >believe all utility companies in the UK have those powers.
On 26/08/2025 08:33, Tweed wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 12/08/2025 15:55, boltar@galactica.caprica wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 15:21:09 +0100
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wibbled:
On 12/08/2025 13:36, Roland Perry wrote:
Why do people need a 'landline' phone?
Perhaps habit, I will always use my landline phone as first choice when >>>>> making a call.
Many places in the UK are still notspots for mobile phone reception. People
there have little choice.To add insult to injury most of the mobile not spots in Wales coincide
with dreadful broadband.
Starlink?
My neighbour tried this, similar to many Welsh places with poor
broadband, minimal mobile signal. However, hilly areas can result in >Starlink not-spots as well so she reverted to copper based broadband.
On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 18:25:59 +0100, Coffee ><martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 26/08/2025 17:29, Tweed wrote:Openreach cannot force a wayleave to a tenanted property; some people
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 26/08/2025 08:30, Tweed wrote:
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:That's why the line is flagged.
On 12/08/2025 13:36, Roland Perry wrote:Completely impossible to bring in a fibre by a totally different route? >>>>>
In message <107fb20$385qg$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:11:44 on Tue, 12 Aug >>>>>>> 2025, NY <me@privacy.net> remarked:
I wonder what will happen long-term as POTS is phased out. Everyone >>>>>>>> will need a DSL connection of some sort for their landline phone. >>>>>>>Why do people need a 'landline' phone? You don't even need it for a >>>>>>> geographic (possibly legacy and well publicised) number. I have a >>>>>>> Cambridge number that's been delivered over IP since I first got it in >>>>>>> around 2003.
I need a landline phone because my line is flagged as not suitable for >>>>>> conversion to FTTP and additionally mobile data is unusable for some of >>>>>> the time.
No windows or walls facing the highway or other public right of way?
Openreach have powers to enforce wayleaves for access to properties. I >>believe all utility companies in the UK have those powers.
have been unable to obtain broadband because landlords want no more
bodged holes drilled in their properties by contractors working for BT
and other providers.
There is no general law appliocable to all services, each has its own
set of law, in some cases provider-specific. Drains, electric and gas
will generally be a case of being required before a building can be
used thus wayleaves not usually comong into it.
On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 10:21:21 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <4ajeakh5plmisifqnc7bbk2v1u9l0oqppc@4ax.com>, at 17:54:12 on >>Thu, 21 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/36/contents
remarked:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 08:46:29 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <0incak1pc1e0uko80j972614c5buvhrtk6@4ax.com>, at 00:47:14 on >>>>Thu, 21 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> >>>>remarked:For practical purposes that is negligence by someone higher up the >>>management chain if they have failes to liaise with the emergency >>>services. On the face of it, it seems to be a breach of the Civil >>>Contingencies Act.
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 08:44:35 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>wrote:
In message <4gi9akhjeru5jafp1utv4r5nmr3vmnrtno@4ax.com>, at 20:09:51 on >>>>>>Tue, 19 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> >>>>>>remarked:CB1 7ED if it is via the entrance in Clifton Road.
Things have improved a lot since I made a 999 call on the M1 and the >>>>>>>>operator did not know how to process the location given on the "M1 A >>>>>>>>123.4" sign. It was in the days when I had a Nokia non-smart phone with >>>>>>>>no GPS, so there was no way for a GPS location to be passed either >>>>>>>>automatically or by asking me to stop and read the location from my >>>>>>>>phone's GPS app. The operator was fixated on postcodes: on a section of >>>>>>>>a motorway a long way from any houses, it is ludicrous to ask for a >>>>>>>>postcode because unpopulated areas aren't allocated postcodes (or else >>>>>>>>the postcode area is extremely large) and someone who is passing throughEverywhere on a mainland or inhabited island in the UK has a >>>>>>>geographic postcode even though the only working delivery point might >>>>>>>be a single farm surrounded by dozens of miles of barren moorland. A >>>>>>>section of motorway will have a postcode but usually no delivery >>>>>>>points; WRT motorways, they are not within the intended context of a >>>>>>>postcode.
will not know the postcode. He also asked me which junction I had last >>>>>>>>passed, which again was "no -ing idea": all I knew was that I was a long
way from the junctions that I had memorised for joining and leaving so I
had no reason to pay attention to junction number signs.
ObRail: About 20yrs ago there was an incident at the carriage washer in >>>>>>the sidings at Cambridge Station, and the emergency services were >>>>>>severely hampered reaching it, because it doesn't have a postcode.
The problem they had was no-one at the station knew the postcode of the >>>>entrance, which at the time might have been off Rustat Rd. There's been >>>>a lot of new building in the mean time.
I think you must mean the Civil Defence Act 1948 (the other Act hadn't
been written yet).
And it seems entirely reasonable to me that someone phoning 999 to get >>attendance at an incident within the station sidings, shouldn't need to >>know the postcode of distant houses they don't necessarily even know the >>street-name of.That seems quite correct. A railway station is very much of an obvious >landmark and ought to be identifable merely by its name. However that
should not preclude ensuring that locations subsidiary to the station
are also indicated to the emergency service operator receiving the
call. I have my own experience of somebody calling for an ambulance
while I was dealing with a cardiac arrest at Kensington Olympia
station being asked to give the street address. As for non-public
areas in a station area and subsidiary entry points, they should be
indicated to staff in appropriate notices similar to some of the exit
details on fire notices.
Back in the day, there was a telco whose proposition was to run fibre through the drains and into houses that way.
Roland Perry wrote:
Back in the day, there was a telco whose proposition was to run fibre
through the drains and into houses that way.
ShittyFibre?
IGMC.
On 16/08/2025 12:07, Roland Perry wrote:If you're close enough pick your phone up, pretend to press a few
In message <107pejh$1jj4p$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:13:37 on Sat, 16 Aug
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <107p8ml$1ib4d$1@dont-email.me>, at 06:32:53 on Sat, 16 Aug >>>> 2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 20:38:17 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:I suspect an underlying inability to be sure of a usable data
John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
According to Recliner-a <recliner.usenet@gmail.com>:
Suppose IrCOm on a ship, much too far from land to get any >>>>>>>>>>>> phone signal. But-a the ship has decent Musklink WiFi, so >>>>>>>>>>>> would I
be able to make WiFi calls-a using my mobile phone?-a Where would >>>>>>>>>>>> my phone company think IrCOm calling-a from, and bill the call as >>>>>>>>>>>> if I was there?-a And would there be too much-a latency on the >>>>>>>>>>>> line
to hold a normal conversation?
Starlink's latecy is about 50ms which is fine for VoIP.
OK, thatrCOs good.
Your phone would connect over the WiFi to your mobile provider's >>>>>>>>>>> VoIP server so I expect your call would appear to be coming from >>>>>>>>>>> the UK.
Why the UK?-a The ship isnrCOt UK-owned or registered.
You pay the ship whatever you pay for the ship wifi,
Nothing
you pay your mobile carrier whatever you usually pay for a call, >>>>>>>>>>> probably nothing if the call is in your monthly minute bundle. >>>>>>>>>>My concern would be if the shiprCOs, say, US-owned. It might >>>>>>>>>> appear that I
was calling from the US, and be charged that way, which could be >>>>>>>>>> expensive.
Seems o2 block WiFi calling when abroad as well.
https://www.o2.co.uk/help/international-and-network/wifi/wifi- >>>>>>>>> and-4g
Can I use WiFi and 4G Calling to make calls abroad?
WiFi Calling is not currently supported outside of the UK. In >>>>>>>>> certain
circumstances, however, it may be possible to enable WiFi
Calling when
abroad. Where used, additional charges will apply.
connection in foreign parts, "certain circumstances" translating as >>>>>>>> "if you are lucky enough to get one".
I think itrCOs more down to the fact that the local cellular telco >>>>>>> would be
bypassed, and thus roaming revenue would be lost. (Revenue
between foreign
and uk carrier at the wholesale level, not the consumer facing
charges).
Way back in the 1990s some folks in the states set up an
experiment (the
TPC.INT DNS domain; see RFC 1486 and successors) which advertised >>>>>> a way of
sending email to a fax machine.-a It really relied on free local
calls,
which at the time was rare outside the US and possibly Canada, and >>>>>> also on
the forebearance of the PTTs, whose revenue would have been hit
and some of
whom were involved in the IETF process.-a The term rCLglobal bypassrCY >>>>>> was being
bandied about.
It would be an understatement to say that things have changed
since then.
Sam
Indeed. Telcos have been trying to push water uphill since the public >>>>> Internet was invented. TheyrCOve been terrified of being turned into >>>>> what is
termed a provider of a dumb pipe - ie just providing a tcp/ip
connection
and not much else. Now with the impending demise of landline
telephones I
think we have finally reached that point. Perhaps the only provider >>>>> of an
additional service is Vodafone, who route voice calls
Do you mean calls to a geographic number? Vodafone is perhaps an
unusual
telco because historically it only offered mobiles, not landlines.
Although they will have inherited some mainly B2B installations when
they acquired Cable and Wireless. That acquisition also allowed them to >>>> offer broadband, with C&W having bought Thus (nee Scottish Telecom) who >>>> had in turn acquired Demon Internet.
No doubt EE and O2 have their own reasons for not offering the product, >>>> but again didn't install landline phones previously either. I suspect
that BT would like to see the back of geographic numbers entirely (for >>>> consumers, anyway), and not just the associated copper, which can't
help.
I meant my regular Vodafone cellular telephone number.
But don't all mobile phone companies route voice calls to the
handsets? Seems like a fairly fundamental requirement.
It is effectively a
service in addition to the tcp/ip connection.
Most people would regard the tcp/ip service as "additional to the
voice calls".
Compare to my cellular enabled iPad. For reasons only known to Apple,
iPads canrCOt make or receive cellular calls even if fitted with a
cellular modem.
Apple have always been weird. ISTR they didn't like people sending/
receiving SMS over the in-built cellular modem either.
My iPad has a mobile eSIM, so the cellular provider is only supplying
a dumb pipe - the thing telcos dreaded.
They need to take that up with Apple, bacuse if you could receive
voice calls to the eSIM's number, that would have revenue associated
with it.
It's bad enough with people insisting on using their phones on speaker
in public without them using tablets for voice calls as well.
In message <107ppcq$1m0sg$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:17:46 on Sat, 16 AugI've got back to pen and paper with my Delay Repay claims. Sometimes I
2025, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
Most people would regard the tcp/ip service as "additional to the voiceNot youngsters. Most barely use the cellular voice function, and SMS
calls".
is now
old hat with them. Pretty much all interaction is via over the top
services.
Most people are not these "youngsters". Given how much the public sector still relies on voice calls, they can hardly avoid them. And whenever
they buy something online, I expect they get an SMS with a six-digit
number they aren't allowed to tell **anyone**. Apart presumably from the people asking for it, in order to complete the payment!!
<Thread convergence> I tried doing an LNER delay-repay yesterday, and it failed because of a rather obvious design error in their otherwise quite neat website. The chatbot soon resigned, saying "You need to chat with a real person", quickly followed by "We have no real people to chat with
at the moment, **PHONE** this 0345 number".
More details about this in a new thread later.
Roland Perry wrote:
Back in the day, there was a telco whose proposition was to run fibre >>through the drains and into houses that way.
ShittyFibre?
IGMC.
In message <jhqhaklor80hbi7sa3oq2uhd9oncu8f2pv@4ax.com>, at 23:18:17 on
Fri, 22 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2025 10:21:21 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:
In message <4ajeakh5plmisifqnc7bbk2v1u9l0oqppc@4ax.com>, at 17:54:12 on >>>Thu, 21 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/36/contents
remarked:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2025 08:46:29 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>wrote:
In message <0incak1pc1e0uko80j972614c5buvhrtk6@4ax.com>, at 00:47:14 on >>>>>Thu, 21 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> >>>>>remarked:For practical purposes that is negligence by someone higher up the >>>>management chain if they have failes to liaise with the emergency >>>>services. On the face of it, it seems to be a breach of the Civil >>>>Contingencies Act.
On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 08:44:35 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> >>>>>>wrote:
In message <4gi9akhjeru5jafp1utv4r5nmr3vmnrtno@4ax.com>, at 20:09:51 on >>>>>>>Tue, 19 Aug 2025, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> >>>>>>>remarked:CB1 7ED if it is via the entrance in Clifton Road.
Things have improved a lot since I made a 999 call on the M1 and the >>>>>>>>>operator did not know how to process the location given on the "M1 A >>>>>>>>>123.4" sign. It was in the days when I had a Nokia non-smart phone withEverywhere on a mainland or inhabited island in the UK has a >>>>>>>>geographic postcode even though the only working delivery point might >>>>>>>>be a single farm surrounded by dozens of miles of barren moorland. A >>>>>>>>section of motorway will have a postcode but usually no delivery >>>>>>>>points; WRT motorways, they are not within the intended context of a >>>>>>>>postcode.
no GPS, so there was no way for a GPS location to be passed either >>>>>>>>>automatically or by asking me to stop and read the location from my >>>>>>>>>phone's GPS app. The operator was fixated on postcodes: on a section of
a motorway a long way from any houses, it is ludicrous to ask for a >>>>>>>>>postcode because unpopulated areas aren't allocated postcodes (or else >>>>>>>>>the postcode area is extremely large) and someone who is passing through
will not know the postcode. He also asked me which junction I had last >>>>>>>>>passed, which again was "no -ing idea": all I knew was that I was a long
way from the junctions that I had memorised for joining and leaving so I
had no reason to pay attention to junction number signs.
ObRail: About 20yrs ago there was an incident at the carriage washer in >>>>>>>the sidings at Cambridge Station, and the emergency services were >>>>>>>severely hampered reaching it, because it doesn't have a postcode. >>>>>>>
The problem they had was no-one at the station knew the postcode of the >>>>>entrance, which at the time might have been off Rustat Rd. There's been >>>>>a lot of new building in the mean time.
I think you must mean the Civil Defence Act 1948 (the other Act hadn't >>>been written yet).
Yes, that's the Act which hadn't been written at the times of the
incident. Wasn't that obvious from what I wrote?
And it seems entirely reasonable to me that someone phoning 999 to get >>>attendance at an incident within the station sidings, shouldn't need to >>>know the postcode of distant houses they don't necessarily even know the >>>street-name of.That seems quite correct. A railway station is very much of an obvious >>landmark and ought to be identifable merely by its name. However that >>should not preclude ensuring that locations subsidiary to the station
are also indicated to the emergency service operator receiving the
call. I have my own experience of somebody calling for an ambulance
while I was dealing with a cardiac arrest at Kensington Olympia
station being asked to give the street address. As for non-public
areas in a station area and subsidiary entry points, they should be >>indicated to staff in appropriate notices similar to some of the exit >>details on fire notices.
The thing about Cambridge Station is that facilities like the carriage >washer were some distance from the public buildings, and the other side
of the running lines and several sidings. By road, the closest vehicular >access to the carriage washer was a little over a mile (slightly shorter >now, if you have permission to use the more recent "buses only" route).
On 12/08/2025 15:55, boltar@galactica.caprica wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 15:21:09 +0100To add insult to injury most of the mobile not spots in Wales coincide
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wibbled:
On 12/08/2025 13:36, Roland Perry wrote:
Why do people need a 'landline' phone?
Perhaps habit, I will always use my landline phone as first choice when
making a call.
Many places in the UK are still notspots for mobile phone reception. People >> there have little choice.
with dreadful broadband.
Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
On 12/08/2025 15:55, boltar@galactica.caprica wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2025 15:21:09 +0100To add insult to injury most of the mobile not spots in Wales coincide
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wibbled:
On 12/08/2025 13:36, Roland Perry wrote:
Why do people need a 'landline' phone?
Perhaps habit, I will always use my landline phone as first choice when >>>> making a call.
Many places in the UK are still notspots for mobile phone reception. People >>> there have little choice.
with dreadful broadband.
It could be because itrCOs just as difficult (practically/commercially/profitably) to run connections to mobile towers
as it is to built premises.
Sam