From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

I read that VM uses SIP for its business services, but for residential
services it uses its own digital voice system. Why does it do this you
might wonder? Call me a cynic, but I would say it is so that it can
never interoperate with the SIP telephone network, and they can always
charge a connection fee. This is the same approach of Google and Amazon,
just refuse to co-operate and so make life difficult for customers.

So there it is, we've destroyed the telephone network and handed
ourselves over to corporations to feed parasitically on us. All this was started by Margaret Thatcher.

Without these arbitrary contrived obsticals there would be no reason for charging separately for voice calls as if they are different from any
other internet service.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

I read that VM uses SIP for its business services, but for residential services it uses its own digital voice system. Why does it do this you
might wonder? Call me a cynic, but I would say it is so that it can
never interoperate with the SIP telephone network, and they can always
charge a connection fee. This is the same approach of Google and Amazon,
just refuse to co-operate and so make life difficult for customers.

So there it is, we've destroyed the telephone network and handed
ourselves over to corporations to feed parasitically on us. All this was started by Margaret Thatcher.

Without these arbitrary contrived obsticals there would be no reason for charging separately for voice calls as if they are different from any
other internet service.

I don't have any particular information about Virgin's implementation, but
that sounds similar to all the other domestic broadband providers. You pay
for 'a landline' and you get a socket on the back of the router that
provides it. You get a similar level of service as you did with a copper landline - no more no less.

They use SIP internally but they don't expose that to customers. For some
it's possible to work out the SIP credentials and connect your own SIP endpoint, but they would rather you didn't do that. I expect Virgin also
use SIP behind the scenes.

It doesn't sound surprising to me. Landline telecoms is not a great revenue earner for ISPs any more - people just don't use them enough. But what they really don't want is having to support domestic users using their own SIP clients - it's just too complex to setup and debug.

Just like ISPs prefer not to run their own email service nowadays - it's
not worth the hassle.

If you want to use SIP, port your number to a third party provider who
allows you the level of access you desire. Many have been discussed in
these groups. You just pay them acording to your requirements. Calls are
not free and never have been - if you want free voice chat then use some
other service like Whatsapp or Facetime.

Theo
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

I read that VM uses SIP for its business services, but for residential
services it uses its own digital voice system. Why does it do this you
might wonder? Call me a cynic, but I would say it is so that it can
never interoperate with the SIP telephone network, and they can always
charge a connection fee. This is the same approach of Google and Amazon,
just refuse to co-operate and so make life difficult for customers.

So there it is, we've destroyed the telephone network and handed
ourselves over to corporations to feed parasitically on us. All this was
started by Margaret Thatcher.

Without these arbitrary contrived obsticals there would be no reason for
charging separately for voice calls as if they are different from any
other internet service.

I don't have any particular information about Virgin's implementation, but that sounds similar to all the other domestic broadband providers. You pay for 'a landline' and you get a socket on the back of the router that
provides it. You get a similar level of service as you did with a copper landline - no more no less.

They use SIP internally but they don't expose that to customers. For some it's possible to work out the SIP credentials and connect your own SIP endpoint, but they would rather you didn't do that. I expect Virgin also
use SIP behind the scenes.

It doesn't sound surprising to me. Landline telecoms is not a great revenue earner for ISPs any more - people just don't use them enough. But what they really don't want is having to support domestic users using their own SIP clients - it's just too complex to setup and debug.

Just like ISPs prefer not to run their own email service nowadays - it's
not worth the hassle.

If you want to use SIP, port your number to a third party provider who
allows you the level of access you desire. Many have been discussed in
these groups. You just pay them acording to your requirements. Calls are not free and never have been - if you want free voice chat then use some other service like Whatsapp or Facetime.

I think what I am trying to do is work out which charges are for which
costs. To answer your last point first, I have already transferred my
line to SIP, and in fact I have two SIP services configured on the same
router. But some of the people I phone use Virgin Media, and they are
not the type of people who will be configuring routers.

The problem of configuration could be solved by providing preconfigured equipment which has been tested.

So considering the costs, I asked before somewhere why we need to pay
for calls if we are all on VOIP, which we will be presumably by the end
of January '27. I accept that services cost money, but we are all paying
for the fibre broadband. So why are there additional costs for using it?
I think you replied to me before that it is because of connection
charges.

As I understand it, if you know a SIP address,
e.g. 666666@voipfine.co.uk, then you can phone it directly using your
own SIP account. How is this different from connecting to Wikipedia, or downloading a file? Why does it have to be a special case internet
service with special case charges? It's not like Netflix, Netflix makes
films, and making films costs money. But I don't pay my ISP to watch
Netflix, or BBC Iplayer. Perhaps someone does? But the data transferred
is considerably more than for a voice call.

I think corporations would like to move to a monopolistic or walled
garden situation, as Whatsapp is enjoying. Imagine if everyone in the
world decided to use the same open source software to make calls. We
just get an account and tell people the ID. It runs on smartphones and desktops. That's it, who needs a landline? How much would a call cost
per minute? Nothing, if you measure it like that. But we all pay for the
fibre.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

Richmond wrote:

Imagine if everyone in the
world decided to use the same open source software to make calls. We
just get an account and tell people the ID. It runs on smartphones and desktops. That's it, who needs a landline? How much would a call cost
per minute? Nothing

Imagine the level of voip spam you'd get ...

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 12/02/2026 15:24, Richmond wrote:

The problem of configuration could be solved by providing preconfigured equipment which has been tested.

And to ensure that it remained as tested, you would keep the credential
secret and not allow the user access. Oops! I think that is exactly how consumer "Digital Voice" is implemented!

As I understand it, if you know a SIP address,
e.g.666666@voipfine.co.uk, then you can phone it directly using your

This looks to be a VoIP provider type address; if you were really going direct, the address would have personal domain name, so you'd be
contacting something like sips:lounge@the-house-of-john-smith.example

own SIP account. How is this different from connecting to Wikipedia, or

I think you mean without using any SIP account!

The reasons are very similar to reasons why nearly every one sends email
via their ISP's outbound relay, and receives it by IMAP. The system
that Demon used, originally, was to make their customers full status
mail nodes, with SMTP both ways, but that wouldn't work well these days
as many destination would refuse to accept the incoming traffic, to
avoid abuse. (I think there is no even a trend to doing email via web
servers, even for outbound).

The Demon way of handling email was also helped because they gave people public IP addresses, and personal domain names. You would need personal domain names to do direct VoIP, and public addresses would help,
although dynamic DNS would be a work round (but someone has to pay for
that).

An added reason is that VoIP always had to interwork with the
traditional phone system and you needed someone to operate that interface.

downloading a file? Why does it have to be a special case internet
service with special case charges?

Telephones were an area in which it was traditional to pay time based
charges.

In any case, you will pay for the infrastructure one way or another.

I think that the internet ended up mainly fixed fee because it too
expensive to bill on real usage.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> writes:

On 12/02/2026 15:24, Richmond wrote:

The problem of configuration could be solved by providing
preconfigured equipment which has been tested.

And to ensure that it remained as tested, you would keep the
credential secret and not allow the user access. Oops! I think that
is exactly how consumer "Digital Voice" is implemented!

You can allow someone to see something without allowing them to change
it. And all they really need to see is their SIP URI.

As I understand it, if you know a SIP address,
e.g.666666@voipfine.co.uk, then you can phone it directly using your

This looks to be a VoIP provider type address; if you were really
going direct, the address would have personal domain name, so you'd be contacting something like sips:lounge@the-house-of-john-smith.example

I don't know what difference this makes. If you want to have your own
SIP service by registering your own domain, yes, but either way it is
like an email address. 666666@voipfone.co.uk is a unique user, SIP URI,
(Fine was a freudian slip, I meant fone).

own SIP account. How is this different from connecting to Wikipedia,
or

I think you mean without using any SIP account!

I don't really. I mean a SIP URI. The address is part of the protocol as
it is with email. You can still set up your own email server if you want
to. You just have to know much more than you used to.

The reasons are very similar to reasons why nearly every one sends
email via their ISP's outbound relay, and receives it by IMAP. The
system that Demon used, originally, was to make their customers full
status mail nodes, with SMTP both ways, but that wouldn't work well
these days as many destination would refuse to accept the incoming
traffic, to avoid abuse. (I think there is no even a trend to doing
email via web servers, even for outbound).

You now have to provide DMARC information in the headers yes, but that
doesn't mean you have to use a third party email provider. It is more convenient as you don't need to configure it.

The Demon way of handling email was also helped because they gave
people public IP addresses, and personal domain names. You would need personal domain names to do direct VoIP, and public addresses would
help, although dynamic DNS would be a work round (but someone has to
pay for that).

You can use direct VOIP on a VOIP provider's domain. I am not sure why
this means you have to pay by the minute. A&A allows direct VOIP calls
(if you configure it).

An added reason is that VoIP always had to interwork with the
traditional phone system and you needed someone to operate that
interface.

That system will be gone by January 31, and many calls must already be
between VOIP systems.

downloading a file? Why does it have to be a special case internet
service with special case charges?

Telephones were an area in which it was traditional to pay time based charges.

That's not a reason for continuing to do it.

In any case, you will pay for the infrastructure one way or another.

I think that the internet ended up mainly fixed fee because it too
expensive to bill on real usage.

I can make a video call free but I have to pay for an audio call. If I
am using Google Meet they make some money out of me, but does that
account for the difference? audio is less data. I can use an Amazon
device to make free calls, even to landlines. I had to pay for the
device, and they will try to sell me subscriptions for music, video,
etc.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

Virgin Media charges 24p per minute for calls to landlines outside its
bundles. That's the same price as a Kilowatt of electricity! You can
have an electric heater on for half an hour, or make a one minute phone
call!
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 2026/2/12 17:0:49, David Woolley wrote:
[snip]

An added reason is that VoIP always had to interwork with the
traditional phone system and you needed someone to operate that interface.

Is the entire world going VoIP (or, at least, turning off its POTS)? I
presume the interworking - interface - will continue in some places.

downloading a file? Why does it have to be a special case internet
service with special case charges?

Telephones were an area in which it was traditional to pay time based charges.

In any case, you will pay for the infrastructure one way or another.

I think that the internet ended up mainly fixed fee because it too
expensive to bill on real usage.

Anytime call plans are available on both landlines (while they still
exist) and VoIP; they're quite expensive on both. They're also available
on mobile (cellular), usually for less, but it's hard to tell because
the mobile operators tend to "throw in" unlimited minutes with other
sorts of things (e. g. so many GB).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Alcohol is way ahead of cocaine as the world's deadliest drug,
hastening around three million people per year into their graves
(cocaine and heroin and crystal meth account for around half a million annually). - Revd Richard Coles, RT 2021/7/3-9
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 12/02/2026 14:13, Richmond wrote:

I read that VM uses SIP for its business services, but for residential services it uses its own digital voice system. Why does it do this you
might wonder? Call me a cynic, but I would say it is so that it can
never interoperate with the SIP telephone network, and they can always
charge a connection fee. This is the same approach of Google and Amazon,
just refuse to co-operate and so make life difficult for customers.

So there it is, we've destroyed the telephone network and handed
ourselves over to corporations to feed parasitically on us. All this was started by Margaret Thatcher.

Yawn.
You shoud see the mess the state run telecoms is in e.g. Germany or Spain

Without these arbitrary contrived obsticals there would be no reason for charging separately for voice calls as if they are different from any
other internet service.

I see that your spelling is from the Tony Blair school of 'if its sounds
about right, it is right'
--
Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people.
But Marxism is the crack cocaine.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes:

On 13/02/2026 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 12/02/2026 14:13, Richmond wrote:

I read that VM uses SIP for its business services, but for residential
services it uses its own digital voice system. Why does it do this you
might wonder?

Not sure about VM but certainly BT does this. I doubt any digital
voice system is anything other than SIP under the covers with the
login details hidden so you can't connect other hardware..

Call me a cynic, but I would say it is so that it can

never interoperate with the SIP telephone network, and they can always
charge a connection fee. This is the same approach of Google and Amazon, >>> just refuse to co-operate and so make life difficult for customers.

You can charge a connection fee on a SIP account. It has IMHO one
purpose, and that is to maximise profits.

It does this by minimising support and service delivery costs. So the hardware they provide is "Plug and Play", you don't need to put user
names or passwords in. Its all been tested together so it all works.

As so many "just want it to work" they can, and do, sell this service
at a premium, and many are happy to pay, as the price stays the same.

So there it is, we've destroyed the telephone network and handed
ourselves over to corporations to feed parasitically on us. All this was >>> started by Margaret Thatcher.

I don't believe its "destroyed", in fact I feel its in a much better
place than when it was run by the GPO, there were no socketed phones,
only GPO approved and owned devices, and long distance calls were at a premium.

If you are prepared to shop around there are many options.

What we are moving toward is not a telephone network, it is the
internet. The telephone network has been dissolved into just another
internet service.

With genuine competition people will stop paying for calls and use some
free software. But genuine competition isn't Google Meet or Whatsapp,
where you have to determine which proprietary software the recipient is
using before calling.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 13/02/2026 10:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 12/02/2026 14:13, Richmond wrote:

I read that VM uses SIP for its business services, but for residential
services it uses its own digital voice system. Why does it do this you
might wonder?

Not sure about VM but certainly BT does this. I doubt any digital voice
system is anything other than SIP under the covers with the login
details hidden so you can't connect other hardware..

Call me a cynic, but I would say it is so that it can

never interoperate with the SIP telephone network, and they can always
charge a connection fee. This is the same approach of Google and Amazon,
just refuse to co-operate and so make life difficult for customers.

You can charge a connection fee on a SIP account. It has IMHO one
purpose, and that is to maximise profits.

It does this by minimising support and service delivery costs. So the
hardware they provide is "Plug and Play", you don't need to put user
names or passwords in. Its all been tested together so it all works.

As so many "just want it to work" they can, and do, sell this service at
a premium, and many are happy to pay, as the price stays the same.

So there it is, we've destroyed the telephone network and handed
ourselves over to corporations to feed parasitically on us. All this was
started by Margaret Thatcher.

I don't believe its "destroyed", in fact I feel its in a much better
place than when it was run by the GPO, there were no socketed phones,
only GPO approved and owned devices, and long distance calls were at a premium.

If you are prepared to shop around there are many options.

Yawn.
You shoud see the mess the state run telecoms is in e.g. Germany or Spain

Without these arbitrary contrived obsticals there would be no reason for
charging separately for voice calls as if they are different from any
other internet service.

I see that your spelling is from the Tony Blair school of 'if its sounds about right, it is right'

As a child of the 1950's who suffered from the progressive education
system, that is the way I was taught...

Dave
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes:

On 12/02/2026 14:13, Richmond wrote:

So there it is, we've destroyed the telephone network and handed
ourselves over to corporations to feed parasitically on us. All this was >>> started by Margaret Thatcher.

I don't believe its "destroyed", in fact I feel its in a much better
place than when it was run by the GPO, there were no socketed phones,
only GPO approved and owned devices, and long distance calls were at a premium.

Tech in the 80s (microprocessors) was much advanced from the 70s (mechanical switching), and tech today is much advanced from the 80s. It's not really a fair comparison because advancing tech has expanded network capacity and
made the cost of voice calls much, much cheaper (even if the price has
not followed suit).

What we are moving toward is not a telephone network, it is the
internet. The telephone network has been dissolved into just another
internet service.

Basically you don't have to worry about long distance call routing any more, you just get the internet to do it for you. The original IETF pioneers
decided it was easier to build out the network that it was to work out how
to bill for it, and that has more or less held.

With genuine competition people will stop paying for calls and use some
free software. But genuine competition isn't Google Meet or Whatsapp,
where you have to determine which proprietary software the recipient is
using before calling.

Long distance routing might be free, but running servers, endpoints and
support are not free. 'Phone calls' have a usage-based billing model (eg wholesale call termination is about 0.1p/min for UK landlines and 0.5-1p/min for mobiles) which covers the recipient network's costs, with the remainder
of the bill going to cover the costs of the initiating network.

Google Meet and Whatsapp are cross-subsidised from business subscriptions or advertisting, and Facetime is cross-subsidised from hardware sales - and
they are notable for offering minimal support. They're free at the point of use because they're a power play in keeping you in the Google/Meta/Apple ecosystem so they can harvest your data or make it undesirable to buy services/hardware from another vendor.

'Phone calls' may have a low cost, but it seems the market is bifurcating
into domestic telecoms, where the cost of running the network (notably
support) is spread across fewer and fewer customers, and business telecoms which is about high volumes and the customer doing more of their own
support. If you don't want to be gouged it's up to you to learn how to make the leap to the latter.

Theo
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes:

On 12/02/2026 14:13, Richmond wrote:

So there it is, we've destroyed the telephone network and handed
ourselves over to corporations to feed parasitically on us. All
this was started by Margaret Thatcher.

I don't believe its "destroyed", in fact I feel its in a much
better place than when it was run by the GPO, there were no
socketed phones, only GPO approved and owned devices, and long
distance calls were at a premium.

Tech in the 80s (microprocessors) was much advanced from the 70s
(mechanical switching), and tech today is much advanced from the 80s.
It's not really a fair comparison because advancing tech has expanded
network capacity and made the cost of voice calls much, much cheaper
(even if the price has not followed suit).

What we are moving toward is not a telephone network, it is the
internet. The telephone network has been dissolved into just another
internet service.

Basically you don't have to worry about long distance call routing any
more, you just get the internet to do it for you. The original IETF
pioneers decided it was easier to build out the network that it was to
work out how to bill for it, and that has more or less held.

With genuine competition people will stop paying for calls and use
some free software. But genuine competition isn't Google Meet or
Whatsapp, where you have to determine which proprietary software the
recipient is using before calling.

Long distance routing might be free, but running servers, endpoints
and support are not free. 'Phone calls' have a usage-based billing
model (eg wholesale call termination is about 0.1p/min for UK
landlines and 0.5-1p/min for mobiles) which covers the recipient
network's costs, with the remainder of the bill going to cover the
costs of the initiating network.

Google Meet and Whatsapp are cross-subsidised from business
subscriptions or advertisting, and Facetime is cross-subsidised from
hardware sales - and they are notable for offering minimal support.
They're free at the point of use because they're a power play in
keeping you in the Google/Meta/Apple ecosystem so they can harvest
your data or make it undesirable to buy services/hardware from another vendor.

'Phone calls' may have a low cost, but it seems the market is
bifurcating into domestic telecoms, where the cost of running the
network (notably support) is spread across fewer and fewer customers,
and business telecoms which is about high volumes and the customer
doing more of their own support. If you don't want to be gouged it's
up to you to learn how to make the leap to the latter.

Theo

I pay for my infrastructure with my broadband subscription. Other people
pay for theirs, that's how the internet works. I don't have to pay a
connection fee to connect to a website. I don't pay per minute to
download.

Those connection fees you quote above are justified by ADSL and Mobile
perhaps, but not by VOIP to VOIP.

Here, listen to free UDP packets:

https://onlineradiobox.com/us/wkct/?cs=us.977todayshits

(unfortunate contatenation of todays and hits)

Currently I phone people free if they are on Signal, or Google Meet, or
Zoom, or Teams, and I pay about 1.5ppm if they don't know what they are
on or how it works, and I pay 3ppm for mobile. I can't do any better
than that as things stand. No one is going to use Matrix or whatever,
they won't understand it.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

In message <10mlvmo$1hfpc$4@dont-email.me>
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

Is the entire world going VoIP (or, at least, turning off its POTS)?

I'd expect so, wouldn't you? POTS requires a lot of expensive
specialise dinfrastructure to be maintained. Increasing numbers
of people (me included) have ditched land lines, since mobile
phones do the job better. Those who want to retain a service
equivalent to POTS can use VoIP, which uses the same infrastructure
as everything else that moves our data around.

David
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 13/02/2026 13:07, Richmond wrote:

What we are moving toward is not a telephone network, it is the
internet. The telephone network has been dissolved into just another
internet service.

+1

With genuine competition people will stop paying for calls and use some
free software. But genuine competition isn't Google Meet or Whatsapp,
where you have to determine which proprietary software the recipient is
using before calling.

Until it becomes ubiquitous.

Nearly everybody I know uses whatsapp.
--
It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house
for the voice of the kingdom.

Jonathan Swift


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 13/02/2026 13:07, Richmond wrote:

With genuine competition people will stop paying for calls and use some free software. But genuine competition isn't Google Meet or Whatsapp,
where you have to determine which proprietary software the recipient is using before calling.

Until it becomes ubiquitous.

Nearly everybody I know uses whatsapp.

Well I'm one of the exceptions then (you know me on here!).

A few years ago Skype was everywhere and it has now disappeared so the
same might happen to WhatsApp.
--
Chris Green
-+
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 14/02/2026 11:04, Chris Green wrote:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 13/02/2026 13:07, Richmond wrote:

With genuine competition people will stop paying for calls and use some
free software. But genuine competition isn't Google Meet or Whatsapp,
where you have to determine which proprietary software the recipient is
using before calling.

Until it becomes ubiquitous.

Nearly everybody I know uses whatsapp.

Well I'm one of the exceptions then (you know me on here!).

A few years ago Skype was everywhere and it has now disappeared so the
same might happen to WhatsApp.

I keep thinking WhatsApp will go. It can't make much money, if any, and
every time Meta try and merge it with Facebook Messenger they get stopped.

I think WhatsApp is popular though because in many countries, e.g.
Spain, text messages seem to be chargeable on most contracts and all you
need to set it up is a mobile number.

Also if you have free WiFi or internet it free to send to any country....

Dave


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 2026/2/14 11:4:9, Chris Green wrote:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 13/02/2026 13:07, Richmond wrote:

With genuine competition people will stop paying for calls and use some
free software. But genuine competition isn't Google Meet or Whatsapp,
where you have to determine which proprietary software the recipient is
using before calling.

Until it becomes ubiquitous.

Nearly everybody I know uses whatsapp.

Well I'm one of the exceptions then (you know me on here!).

Me too. Nor Instagram, TikTok, or (if I can help it) Facebook.

A few years ago Skype was everywhere and it has now disappeared so the
same might happen to WhatsApp.

If you still had Skype when it ended, next time you turned it on, it
turned itself into the replacement (Teams, I think).

Skype had a system for connecting you to landlines (and I think mobiles)
- you had to pay though. (Though I think it was cheap.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If it's not on fire, it's a software problem.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 14/02/2026 13:24, David Wade wrote:

I think WhatsApp is popular though because in many countries, e.g.
Spain, text messages seem to be chargeable on most contracts and all you need to set it up is a mobile number.

WhatsApp is popular worldwide (except North America ironically), because
it's a platform agnostic method to sent texts, photos, videos, and audio
files 'free of charge' to anyone else on the planet.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> writes:

On 14/02/2026 13:24, David Wade wrote:

I think WhatsApp is popular though because in many countries,
e.g. Spain, text messages seem to be chargeable on most contracts and
all you need to set it up is a mobile number.

WhatsApp is popular worldwide (except North America ironically),
because it's a platform agnostic method to sent texts, photos, videos,
and audio files 'free of charge' to anyone else on the planet.

And the price they pay for this freedom is to have their data stolen by
a criminal organisation.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 14/02/2026 16:46, Richmond wrote:

Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> writes:

On 14/02/2026 13:24, David Wade wrote:

I think WhatsApp is popular though because in many countries,
e.g. Spain, text messages seem to be chargeable on most contracts and
all you need to set it up is a mobile number.

WhatsApp is popular worldwide (except North America ironically),
because it's a platform agnostic method to sent texts, photos, videos,
and audio files 'free of charge' to anyone else on the planet.

And the price they pay for this freedom is to have their data stolen by
a criminal organisation.

They are welcome to my whatsapp data. It's as boring as fuck....
--
"Fanaticism consists in redoubling your effort when you have
forgotten your aim."

George Santayana

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 2026/2/14 16:1:12, Mark Carver wrote:

On 14/02/2026 13:24, David Wade wrote:

I think WhatsApp is popular though because in many countries, e.g.
Spain, text messages seem to be chargeable on most contracts and all you
need to set it up is a mobile number.

WhatsApp is popular worldwide (except North America ironically), because it's a platform agnostic method to sent texts, photos, videos, and audio files 'free of charge' to anyone else on the planet.

"Anyone else on the planet" who (a) has it [and the equipment -
smartphone or computer - to use it] (b) whose contact information you know.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 14/02/2026 22:08, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2026/2/14 16:1:12, Mark Carver wrote:

On 14/02/2026 13:24, David Wade wrote:

I think WhatsApp is popular though because in many countries, e.g.
Spain, text messages seem to be chargeable on most contracts and all you >>> need to set it up is a mobile number.

WhatsApp is popular worldwide (except North America ironically), because
it's a platform agnostic method to sent texts, photos, videos, and audio
files 'free of charge' to anyone else on the planet.

"Anyone else on the planet" who (a) has it [and the equipment -
smartphone or computer - to use it] (b) whose contact information you know.

But over 90% of the uk population now have smartphones compared to 43%
having land lines. Their contact information is just their mobile
number. If they don't have WhatsApp it says do you want to invite them.
So in almost every case for a UK user its as easy to get in touch with
someone via WhatsApp as it is to phone or text them.

Unlike SMS messages its easy to have community groups, so I am, somewhat reluctantly, in them for several local community groups, so guide dog
fund raisers, local campaign for real ale, U3A Spanish conversation plus
a few others.

I also use it to talk to the folks who look after my foreign holiday
home. I can see when the messages have been read etc.

You might not like it, but it really is a very popular comms tool...

Dave
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 12.02.2026 14:13 Uhr Richmond wrote:

So there it is, we've destroyed the telephone network and handed
ourselves over to corporations to feed parasitically on us. All this
was started by Margaret Thatcher.

Just choose one of the many SIP providers independent of your ISP (make
sure it supports IPv6, so you can use it even when your ISP doesn't
provide you a public IPv4).

SIP and RTSP are industry-standard protocols.
--
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to 1770902037muell@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 12.02.2026 15:24 Uhr Richmond wrote:

As I understand it, if you know a SIP address,
e.g. 666666@voipfine.co.uk, then you can phone it directly using your
own SIP account. How is this different from connecting to Wikipedia,
or downloading a file? Why does it have to be a special case internet
service with special case charges?

Because the companies operate the routing and want to charge people for
that. There was the idea of using DNS to route the calls directly to
the callee, but the ISPs didn't like that.
--
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to 1770906284muell@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> writes:

On 12.02.2026 14:13 Uhr Richmond wrote:

So there it is, we've destroyed the telephone network and handed
ourselves over to corporations to feed parasitically on us. All this
was started by Margaret Thatcher.

Just choose one of the many SIP providers independent of your ISP
(make sure it supports IPv6, so you can use it even when your ISP
doesn't provide you a public IPv4).

SIP and RTSP are industry-standard protocols.

I've already done that. In fact, I've just checked my emails, I opened
my Voipfone account in 2021 while I was on ADSL, because it was cheaper
than the landline. That wasn't really the point of my message. My point
was that VOIP isn't a telephone network. The network is The Internet,
and VOIP is just one service on it, like any other. Before Voipfone I
used Sipgate, and before that I used Skype.

I am not with Virgin Media, but I know people who are, and if they are
paying 24p a minute for VOIP then they really are being ripped off. And
if Virgin Media is being paid 24p a minute for outgoing calls, then why
are they also charging a Landline Termination Rate? which is the usual
reason given for the cost of calls. Can't they make enough money from a
price that is 60 times the cost of a Kilowatt of electricity?
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 15.02.2026 13:21 Uhr Richmond wrote:

I am not with Virgin Media, but I know people who are, and if they are
paying 24p a minute for VOIP then they really are being ripped off.
And if Virgin Media is being paid 24p a minute for outgoing calls,
then why are they also charging a Landline Termination Rate? which is
the usual reason given for the cost of calls. Can't they make enough
money from a price that is 60 times the cost of a Kilowatt of
electricity?

There are enough people who do not know that they can use another
provider - especially old people don't want to change their provider -
even if their service is rather expensive. I know various cases where
elderly people pay much more than needed for electricity or methane gas
- because they simply don't want to switch to another company. That
means the expensive ones can make money from such customers.
--
kind regards
Marco

Send spam to 1771158067muell@stinkedores.dorfdsl.de

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 10:07:57 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Nearly everybody I know uses whatsapp.

I don't.There are better and more secure alternatives.
--
The NHS will last as long as there are folk left with faith to
fight for it. - Aneurin Bevan
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

Julian Macassey <julian@n6are.com> wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 10:07:57 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Nearly everybody I know uses whatsapp.

I don't.There are better and more secure alternatives.

But not necessarily more popular. ThererCOs no point using a more secure app to communicate with if nobody you know uses it.

Tim
--
Please don't feed the trolls
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> writes:

Julian Macassey <julian@n6are.com> wrote:

Nearly everybody I know uses whatsapp.

I don't.There are better and more secure alternatives.

But not necessarily more popular. ThererCOs no point using a more
secure app to communicate with if nobody you know uses it.

There is no point in supporting criminal behaviour if you want to live
in a civilised society.

I use Signal to communicate with people who are on Signal, and email or telephone for everyone else.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 16/02/2026 13:55, Julian Macassey wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 10:07:57 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Nearly everybody I know uses whatsapp.

I don't.There are better and more secure alternatives.

Define "Better"? I have telegram because the council where my Spanish
House is uses it , but if I want to join the U3A Spanish conversation
group in Manchester, the various walking groups near where I live, the
local guide dog fund raising group, the various "friends of" the local
parks groups then its WhatsApp.

Just as V2000 format tapes offered better quality than VHS, but it
failed because VHS was "adequate", messaging apps might be more secure,
but if the one they are used too "works" its very hard to persuade
people to change.

I also believe that there is nothing like "communities" in Telegram, and
this is heavily used by several of the groups I am in....

.. so more secure, yes, but useless for what much of what I want

Dave
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> writes:

Julian Macassey <julian@n6are.com> wrote:

Nearly everybody I know uses whatsapp.

I don't.There are better and more secure alternatives.

But not necessarily more popular. ThererCOs no point using a more
secure app to communicate with if nobody you know uses it.

There is no point in supporting criminal behaviour if you want to live
in a civilised society.

ThatrCOs a bit of a leap. There are many, many reasons for criminal
behaviour but IrCOll bet that use of WhatsApp is *way* down the list.

I use Signal to communicate with people who are on Signal, and email or telephone for everyone else.

If that works for you, fine. Not using WhatsApp would be a major
inconvenience for me.

Tim
--
Please don't feed the trolls
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> writes:

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

Tim+ <timdownieuk@yahoo.co.youkay> writes:

Julian Macassey <julian@n6are.com> wrote:

Nearly everybody I know uses whatsapp.

I don't.There are better and more secure alternatives.

But not necessarily more popular. ThererCOs no point using a more
secure app to communicate with if nobody you know uses it.

There is no point in supporting criminal behaviour if you want to live
in a civilised society.

ThatrCOs a bit of a leap. There are many, many reasons for criminal behaviour but IrCOll bet that use of WhatsApp is *way* down the list.

I am talking about the behaviour of Meta, violating:

GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation)
DMA (Digital Markets Act)
ePrivacy Directive
DSA (Digital Services Act)

https://localmess.github.io/

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/06/protect-yourself-metas-latest-attack-privacy
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.telecom

On 16/02/2026 13:55, Julian Macassey wrote:

On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 10:07:57 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Nearly everybody I know uses whatsapp.

I don't.There are better and more secure alternatives.

Are you peddling drugs or plotting the overthrow of the state?

Why do you need that security?


--
"Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and
higher education positively fortifies it."

- Stephen Vizinczey


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2