David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes:
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.
So true, why would any one want a phone that only works when plugged in
to a wall socket...
Because you can have a mobile phone aswell, but the landline is better, because mobile phones are crap.
On 13/02/2026 16:54, David Higton wrote:
In message <10mlvmo$1hfpc$4@dont-email.me>
-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
Is the entire world going VoIP (or, at least, turning off its POTS)?
Many have already done so. You can deliver VOIP over low bandwidth
internet, over LEO satellite, or over 5G. Yes modern mobile is VOIP!
I'd expect so, wouldn't you?-a POTS requires a lot of expensive
specialise dinfrastructure to be maintained.-a Increasing numbers
of people (me included) have ditched land lines, since mobile
phones do the job better.-a 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.
So true, why would any one want a phone that only works when plugged in
to a wall socket...
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
In message <82cy28uyuy.fsf@example.com>
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes:
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.
So true, why would any one want a phone that only works when plugged in
to a wall socket...
Because you can have a mobile phone aswell, but the landline is better,
because mobile phones are crap.
I suspect you've not been using a decent, modern mobile phone, because
my experience is the opposite.
Plus my mobile is always with me, so I
can use it all over the place - I'm not restricted to just at home.
And of course my smartphone can do hugely more stuff than any landline
ever could.
You're writing that mainly from the user's point of view. MyAlmost certainly not.
question was really wondering if there are parts of the world
(probably countries, or parts thereof) who already have the landline
"dinfrastructure" EfOe , and maybe the people who know how to
maintain it, but not the mobile - and/or are too large and/or
sparsely populated for mobile (cellular) to be_economic_.
In the same way as parts of Scotland still have at best patchy mobile coverage, but consider places that are bigger and sparser (and
mountainous). [Yes, satellites. But that requires political
agreement.]
On 14/02/2026 03:12, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
You're writing that mainly from the user's point of view. MyAlmost certainly not.
question was really wondering if there are parts of the world
(probably countries, or parts thereof) who already have the landline
"dinfrastructure" EfOe , and maybe the people who know how to
maintain it, but not the mobile - and/or are too large and/or
sparsely populated for mobile (cellular) to be_economic_.
Its far cheaper to push mobile towers into phoneless regions than it is copper wires.
In the same way as parts of Scotland still have at best patchy mobile
coverage, but consider places that are bigger and sparser (and
mountainous). [Yes, satellites. But that requires political
agreement.]
Acquaintance has a place in scotland with no broadband at all, but
nearby hill has 5G on top....
On 2026/2/14 10:13:4, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/02/2026 03:12, J. P. Gilliver wrote:What part of "already have" did I not make clear? I'm thinking of places
You're writing that mainly from the user's point of view. MyAlmost certainly not.
question was really wondering if there are parts of the world
(probably countries, or parts thereof) who already have the landline
"dinfrastructure" EfOe , and maybe the people who know how to
maintain it, but not the mobile - and/or are too large and/or
sparsely populated for mobile (cellular) to be_economic_.
Its far cheaper to push mobile towers into phoneless regions than it is
copper wires.
that have the wires - often put in along railway lines, decades ago,
when the railway lines were put in. Or, for whatever other reason,
already have the wires (and equipment - maybe even mechanical!).
So if he loses his landline, he'll have to climb a hill every time he
In the same way as parts of Scotland still have at best patchy mobile
coverage, but consider places that are bigger and sparser (and
mountainous). [Yes, satellites. But that requires political
agreement.]
Acquaintance has a place in scotland with no broadband at all, but
nearby hill has 5G on top....
wants to make a 'phone call?
On 2026/2/14 10:13:4, The Natural Philosopher wrote:There are no places like that. Narnia maybe.
On 14/02/2026 03:12, J. P. Gilliver wrote:What part of "already have" did I not make clear? I'm thinking of places
You're writing that mainly from the user's point of view. MyAlmost certainly not.
question was really wondering if there are parts of the world
(probably countries, or parts thereof) who already have the landline
"dinfrastructure" EfOe , and maybe the people who know how to
maintain it, but not the mobile - and/or are too large and/or
sparsely populated for mobile (cellular) to be_economic_.
Its far cheaper to push mobile towers into phoneless regions than it is
copper wires.
that have the wires - often put in along railway lines, decades ago,
when the railway lines were put in. Or, for whatever other reason,
already have the wires (and equipment - maybe even mechanical!).
So if he loses his landline, he'll have to climb a hill every time he
In the same way as parts of Scotland still have at best patchy mobile
coverage, but consider places that are bigger and sparser (and
mountainous). [Yes, satellites. But that requires political
agreement.]
Acquaintance has a place in scotland with no broadband at all, but
nearby hill has 5G on top....
wants to make a 'phone call?
On 14/02/2026 15:28, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/2/14 10:13:4, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 14/02/2026 03:12, J. P. Gilliver wrote:What part of "already have" did I not make clear? I'm thinking of places
You're writing that mainly from the user's point of view. MyAlmost certainly not.
question was really wondering if there are parts of the world
(probably countries, or parts thereof) who already have the landline
-a "dinfrastructure" EfOe , and maybe the people who know how to
maintain it, but not the mobile - and/or are too large and/or
sparsely populated for mobile (cellular) to be_economic_.
Its far cheaper to push mobile towers into phoneless regions than it is
copper wires.
that have the wires - often put in along railway lines, decades ago,
when the railway lines were put in. Or, for whatever other reason,
already have the wires (and equipment - maybe even mechanical!).
"Already have" doesn't mean they will continue to work. Mechanical
exchanges need repairs and spares. Electronic units similar, and spares possibly hard to obtain. The wire gets stolen. The poles get damaged
through floods and landslides.
.. so in many cases its cheaper to replace them with mobile
infrastructure than maintain the phone lines, and they have probably
done this already in most places. A few years ago when touring in China
I was never without a good signal...
So if he loses his landline, he'll have to climb a hill every time he
In the same way as parts of Scotland still have at best patchy mobile
coverage, but consider places that are bigger and sparser (and
mountainous). [Yes, satellites. But that requires political
agreement.]
Acquaintance has a place in scotland with no broadband at all, but
nearby hill has 5G on top....
wants to make a 'phone call?
Presumably as 5g is line-of-site he just opens a window....
.. and as for mobiles being "poor" mine is pretty perfect. In my house
the signal is poor but it does do WiFi calling which seems fine...
.. as for being easier to use, no way. Trying to use a DECT phone with
only a 10-button keyboard to update the address book. Looking up a
business on the internet and then having to re-type the phone number to
call it. yuk...
.. sod that for a game of soldiers. Google, have my numbers, half the
folks in the list are dead so they aren't any use to you, but if it lets
me search by voice, I'm in.
Dave
"Already have" doesn't mean they will continue to work. Mechanical
exchanges need repairs and spares. Electronic units similar, and spares possibly hard to obtain. The wire gets stolen. The poles get damaged
through floods and landslides.
.. so in many cases its cheaper to replace them with mobile
infrastructure than maintain the phone lines, and they have probably
done this already in most places. A few years ago when touring in China
I was never without a good signal...
Don't forget that "mobile infrastructure" still needs to connect to something. And in a sparsely-populated country like Mongolia or parts of Tibet, you'll need a string of long thin cells, probably with hardly any users at the intermediate points.
"J. P. Gilliver" wrote:
Don't forget that "mobile infrastructure" still needs to connect to
something. And in a sparsely-populated country like Mongolia or parts of
Tibet, you'll need a string of long thin cells, probably with hardly any
users at the intermediate points.
Or microwave backhaul, no need to provide mobile service in locations without users ...
On 13.02.2026 01:44 Uhr J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Is the entire world going VoIP (or, at least, turning off its POTS)? I
presume the interworking - interface - will continue in some places.
It already did. The analog POTS equipment was replaced by ISDN in the
90s, only a few countries still had parts of their network with analog exchanges (I read an article that in Russia an analog exchange still
existed until 2016). Most of the ISDN equipment is also old and out of support, so most ISPs replaced that by VoIP. The amount of analog/ISDN customers is also shrinking, as this service was more expensive than
VoIP - it will be even more the less people use that (especially young
people don't use landline, they use their mobile with various
walled-garden apps for calls).
On a similar theme, I read somewhere that there remained - somewhere
along the north coast of Scotland, I think - an exchange (presumably
with a long dialling code!) that still had single-digit numbers, until
quite late. (Presumably with, obviously, only 10 subscribers, or less if
the expansion allowances were maintained!) [Those subscribers must
_really_ have resented it when they lost the option to use local
dialling numbers.]
On 2026/2/14 16:51:37, David Wade wrote:
[]
"Already have" doesn't mean they will continue to work. MechanicalDon't forget that "mobile infrastructure" still needs to connect to something. And in a sparsely-populated country like Mongolia or parts of Tibet, you'll need a string of long thin cells, probably with hardly any users at the intermediate points. Yes, mobile is simpler in a lot of
exchanges need repairs and spares. Electronic units similar, and spares
possibly hard to obtain. The wire gets stolen. The poles get damaged
through floods and landslides.
.. so in many cases its cheaper to replace them with mobile
infrastructure than maintain the phone lines, and they have probably
done this already in most places. A few years ago when touring in China
I was never without a good signal...
cases (and you certainly save on the cost of the wire if it isn't
already there or has deteriorated), but not all.
[]
On 13.02.2026 01:44 Uhr J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Is the entire world going VoIP (or, at least, turning off its POTS)? I
presume the interworking - interface - will continue in some places.
It already did. The analog POTS equipment was replaced by ISDN in the
90s, only a few countries still had parts of their network with analog exchanges (I read an article that in Russia an analog exchange still
existed until 2016). Most of the ISDN equipment is also old and out of support, so most ISPs replaced that by VoIP. The amount of analog/ISDN customers is also shrinking, as this service was more expensive than
VoIP - it will be even more the less people use that (especially young
people don't use landline, they use their mobile with various
walled-garden apps for calls).
On 14.02.2026 15:28 Uhr J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/2/14 10:13:4, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Acquaintance has a place in scotland with no broadband at all, butSo if he loses his landline, he'll have to climb a hill every time he
nearby hill has 5G on top....
wants to make a 'phone call?
Doesn't Starlink work there?
On 15/02/2026 10:58, Marco Moock wrote:
On 13.02.2026 01:44 Uhr J. P. Gilliver wrote:+1 to all of the above.
Is the entire world going VoIP (or, at least, turning off its POTS)? I
presume the interworking - interface - will continue in some places.
It already did. The analog POTS equipment was replaced by ISDN in the
90s, only a few countries still had parts of their network with analog
exchanges (I read an article that in Russia an analog exchange still
existed until 2016). Most of the ISDN equipment is also old and out of
support, so most ISPs replaced that by VoIP. The amount of analog/ISDN
customers is also shrinking, as this service was more expensive than
VoIP - it will be even more the less people use that (especially young
people don't use landline, they use their mobile with various
walled-garden apps for calls).
Advanced electronics makes a VOIP phone cheaper to set up than a trad landline.
The way things are going IP via Starlink is going to be a real
alternative in far flung places.
On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 12:39:17 +0000, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On a similar theme, I read somewhere that there remained - somewhere
along the north coast of Scotland, I think - an exchange (presumably
with a long dialling code!) that still had single-digit numbers, until
quite late. (Presumably with, obviously, only 10 subscribers, or less if
the expansion allowances were maintained!) [Those subscribers must
_really_ have resented it when they lost the option to use local
dialling numbers.]
1990 - see http://www.vintage-radio.net/forum/attachment.php? s=41079d26b530b9ddc2c1fda5653e685d&attachmentid=110627&d=1436817233
There was only one number - "1" - and it couldn't be dialled direct but needed the operator to connect it. So you couldn't make a local call
anyway as there was no other number to phone!
Mike
On 15/02/2026 10:58, Marco Moock wrote:For whom - the customer, or the service provider? (Maybe both, but I am wondering which you were thinking of when you wrote that sentence.)
On 13.02.2026 01:44 Uhr J. P. Gilliver wrote:+1 to all of the above.
Is the entire world going VoIP (or, at least, turning off its POTS)? I
presume the interworking - interface - will continue in some places.
It already did. The analog POTS equipment was replaced by ISDN in the
90s, only a few countries still had parts of their network with analog>> exchanges (I read an article that in Russia an analog exchange still
existed until 2016). Most of the ISDN equipment is also old and out of>> support, so most ISPs replaced that by VoIP. The amount of analog/ISDN>> customers is also shrinking, as this service was more expensive than
VoIP - it will be even more the less people use that (especially young>> people don't use landline, they use their mobile with various
walled-garden apps for calls).
Advanced electronics makes a VOIP phone cheaper to set up than a trad landline.
The way things are going IP via Starlink is going to be a real
alternative in far flung places.
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes:
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.
So true, why would any one want a phone that only works when plugged
in to a wall socket...
Because you can have a mobile phone aswell, but the landline is better, because mobile phones are crap.
On 13/02/2026 21:17, Richmond wrote:
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes:
Because you can have a mobile phone aswell, but the landline isspecialise 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.
So true, why would any one want a phone that only works when plugged
in to a wall socket...
better, because mobile phones are crap.
Yes, you're right, they've been a total and utter consumer failure, so
few people worldwide bother with one.
Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> writes:
On 13/02/2026 21:17, Richmond wrote:
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes:
Because you can have a mobile phone aswell, but the landline isspecialise 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.
So true, why would any one want a phone that only works when plugged
in to a wall socket...
better, because mobile phones are crap.
Yes, you're right, they've been a total and utter consumer failure, so
few people worldwide bother with one.
What you've done there is distorted what I said into something else, and
then responding to that.
I can have an opinion about mobile phones which is different from
yours. I base my opinion on my own experience of the quality of mobile
phone calls.
On 13/02/2026 21:17, Richmond wrote:
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes:
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.
So true, why would any one want a phone that only works when plugged
in to a wall socket...
Because you can have a mobile phone aswell, but the landline is better, because mobile phones are crap.
Yes, you're right, they've been a total and utter consumer failure, so
few people worldwide bother with one.
On 16/02/2026 16:57, Richmond wrote:
Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> writes:
On 13/02/2026 21:17, Richmond wrote:What you've done there is distorted what I said into something else,
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes:
Because you can have a mobile phone aswell, but the landline isspecialise 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.
So true, why would any one want a phone that only works when plugged >>>>> in to a wall socket...
better, because mobile phones are crap.
Yes, you're right, they've been a total and utter consumer failure, so
few people worldwide bother with one.
and
then responding to that.
I can have an opinion about mobile phones which is different from
yours. I base my opinion on my own experience of the quality of mobile
phone calls.
I've distorted nothing, you stated, quote "mobile phones are crap",
it's there above in black and white !.
What you should have said is mobile phones, in your house, are crap, YMMV
On 2026/2/15 20:33:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/02/2026 10:58, Marco Moock wrote:
On 13.02.2026 01:44 Uhr J. P. Gilliver wrote:+1 to all of the above.
Is the entire world going VoIP (or, at least, turning off its POTS)? I >>> presume the interworking - interface - will continue in some places.
It already did. The analog POTS equipment was replaced by ISDN in the
90s, only a few countries still had parts of their network with analog
exchanges (I read an article that in Russia an analog exchange still
existed until 2016). Most of the ISDN equipment is also old and out of
support, so most ISPs replaced that by VoIP. The amount of analog/ISDN
customers is also shrinking, as this service was more expensive than
VoIP - it will be even more the less people use that (especially young
people don't use landline, they use their mobile with various
walled-garden apps for calls).
Advanced electronics makes a VOIP phone cheaper to set up than a trad landline.
For whom - the customer, or the service provider? (Maybe both, but I am wondering which you were thinking of when you wrote that sentence.)
The way things are going IP via Starlink is going to be a real
alternative in far flung places.
Definitely. Ordinary cellular is already cheaper to set up in many
places that _don't_ already have a landline structure in place;...
On 16/02/2026 16:57, Richmond wrote:[]
[]On 13/02/2026 21:17, Richmond wrote:
[]Because you can have a mobile phone aswell, but the landline is
better, because mobile phones are crap.
I've distorted nothing, you stated, quote "mobile phones are crap", it's there above in black and white !.
Thanks for that! I had been under the impression that it was an exchange
with several (10 or less, obviously), and on the mainland somewhere -
but I may have been wrong; the story of a (normal) operator not having
heard of it rings (!) true, though, in that I remember that from when I
first heard the story.
On 2026/2/15 20:33:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
+1 to all of the above.
Advanced electronics makes a VOIP phone cheaper to set up than a trad
landline.
For whom - the customer, or the service provider? (Maybe both, but I am wondering which you were thinking of when you wrote that sentence.)
Definitely. Ordinary cellular is already cheaper to set up in many
The way things are going IP via Starlink is going to be a real
alternative in far flung places.
places that _don't_ already have a landline structure in place; many previously third-world countries are leapfrogging, i. e. getting mobile before fixed (which they may never get).
Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> writes:That might have been true ten years ago, but mostly these days It's
On 13/02/2026 21:17, Richmond wrote:
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes:
Because you can have a mobile phone aswell, but the landline isspecialise 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.
So true, why would any one want a phone that only works when plugged
in to a wall socket...
better, because mobile phones are crap.
Yes, you're right, they've been a total and utter consumer failure, so
few people worldwide bother with one.
What you've done there is distorted what I said into something else, and
then responding to that.
I can have an opinion about mobile phones which is different from
yours. I base my opinion on my own experience of the quality of mobile
phone calls.
Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> writes:
On 16/02/2026 16:57, Richmond wrote:
Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> writes:
On 13/02/2026 21:17, Richmond wrote:What you've done there is distorted what I said into something else,
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes:
Because you can have a mobile phone aswell, but the landline isspecialise 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.
So true, why would any one want a phone that only works when plugged >>>>>> in to a wall socket...
better, because mobile phones are crap.
Yes, you're right, they've been a total and utter consumer failure, so >>>> few people worldwide bother with one.
and
then responding to that.
I can have an opinion about mobile phones which is different from
yours. I base my opinion on my own experience of the quality of mobile
phone calls.
I've distorted nothing, you stated, quote "mobile phones are crap",
it's there above in black and white !.
What you should have said is mobile phones, in your house, are crap, YMMV
You've equated 'crap' with not a commercial success. You'll be telling
me Windows isn't crap next.
On 16/02/2026 17:49, Richmond wrote:
Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> writes:
On 16/02/2026 16:57, Richmond wrote:
Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> writes:
On 13/02/2026 21:17, Richmond wrote:What you've done there is distorted what I said into something else,
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes:
Because you can have a mobile phone aswell, but the landline isspecialise dinfrastructure to be maintained.-a Increasing numbers of >>>>>>>> people (me included) have ditched land lines, since mobile phones >>>>>>>> do the job better.-a 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.
So true, why would any one want a phone that only works when plugged >>>>>>> in to a wall socket...
better, because mobile phones are crap.
Yes, you're right, they've been a total and utter consumer failure, so >>>>> few people worldwide bother with one.
and
then responding to that.
I can have an opinion about mobile phones which is different from
yours. I base my opinion on my own experience of the quality of mobile >>>> phone calls.
I've distorted nothing, you stated, quote "mobile phones are crap",
it's there above in black and white !.
What you should have said is mobile phones, in your house, are crap,
YMMV
You've equated 'crap' with not a commercial success. You'll be telling
me Windows isn't crap next.
Well there isn't much choice over windows, is there?
It succeeds despite being crap.
Of course mobile phones are crap too - what consumer product is not,
these days? - but they are not so crappy that people with a choice don't
use them.,
9 (999), and one
digit (usually 8)
On 17/02/2026 08:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/02/2026 17:49, Richmond wrote:
Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> writes:
On 16/02/2026 16:57, Richmond wrote:
Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> writes:
On 13/02/2026 21:17, Richmond wrote:
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes:
Because you can have a mobile phone aswell, but the landline isspecialise dinfrastructure to be maintained.-a IncreasingSo true, why would any one want a phone that only works when
numbers of people (me included) have ditched land lines, since >>>>>>>>> mobile phones do the job better.-a 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. >>>>>>>>
plugged in to a wall socket...
better, because mobile phones are crap.
Yes, you're right, they've been a total and utter consumer
failure, so few people worldwide bother with one. >>>>> What
you've done there is distorted what I said into something else,
opinion about mobile phones which is different from >>>>>and >>>>> then responding to that. >>>>> I can have an
yours. I base my opinion on my own experience of the quality of
mobile >>>>> phone calls.
I've distorted nothing, you stated, quote "mobile phones are crap",
it's there above in black and white !.
What you should have said is mobile phones, in your house, are
crap, YMMV
You've equated 'crap' with not a commercial success. You'll be
telling me Windows isn't crap next. >> Well there isn't much choice
over windows, is there? >> It succeeds despite being crap.
But if you are deploying it in a corporate or enterprise environment
its not "crap", it pretty much just works. Yes you can do all the same
things with Linux desktops but to do so you need to build your own
tool kits. Look at the issues the EU is facing as it tries to drop
Microsoft.
Of course mobile phones are crap too - what consumer product is not,I don't find them "crappy", perhaps overpriced, but "crappy", really?
these days? - but they are not so crappy that people with a choice
don't use them.,
Well there isn't much choice over windows, is there?
It succeeds despite being crap.
But if you are deploying it in a corporate or enterprise environment its
not "crap", it pretty much just works. Yes you can do all the same
things with Linux desktops but to do so you need to build your own tool kits. Look at the issues the EU is facing as it tries to drop Microsoft.
Of course mobile phones are crap too - what consumer product is not,I don't find them "crappy", perhaps overpriced, but "crappy", really?
these days? - but they are not so crappy that people with a choice
don't use them.,
On 17/02/2026 08:58, David Wade wrote:
Oh purlease.-a If corporations spent just 10% of the cost of maintaining Windows on Linux training They would be streets ahead of the currentWell there isn't much choice over windows, is there?
It succeeds despite being crap.
But if you are deploying it in a corporate or enterprise environment
its not "crap", it pretty much just works. Yes you can do all the same
things with Linux desktops but to do so you need to build your own
tool kits. Look at the issues the EU is facing as it tries to drop
Microsoft.
windows mess.
Of course mobile phones are crap too - what consumer product is not,I don't find them "crappy", perhaps overpriced, but "crappy", really?
these days? - but they are not so crappy that people with a choice
don't use them.,
After 8 years I still cannot reliably-a answer-a a whatsapp voice call.
Do I swipe ? Do I touch a button?
Tried it all. Just call them back now.
touch screens are the worst possible user interface
On 17/02/2026 13:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Oh purlease.-a If corporations spent just 10% of the cost of
maintaining Windows on Linux training They would be streets ahead of
the current windows mess.
how much do you think they spend on maintaining windows?
what makes you think in the corporate world its a mess?
Dave--
After 8 years I still cannot reliably answer a whatsapp voice call.
Do I swipe ? Do I touch a button?
Tried it all. Just call them back now.
touch screens are the worst possible user interface
On 2026/2/17 13:24:22, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
[]
After 8 years I still cannot reliably answer a whatsapp voice call.When I last had a smartphone, it literally took me several calls to
Do I swipe ? Do I touch a button?
Tried it all. Just call them back now.
touch screens are the worst possible user interface
myself (from my landline) before I worked out how to answer an incoming
call - an ordinary one, not a whatsapp or anything else fancy one.
Swiping is NOT intuitive to someone who has not encountered it before.
Thanks for that! I had been under the impression that it was an exchange
with several (10 or less, obviously), and on the mainland somewhere -
but I may have been wrong; the story of a (normal) operator not having
heard of it rings (!) true, though, in that I remember that from when I
first heard the story.
So true, why would any one want a phone that only works when plugged
in to a wall socket...
Because you can have a mobile phone aswell, but the landline is better,
because mobile phones are crap.
Yes, you're right, they've been a total and utter consumer failure, so
few people worldwide bother with one.
Yes, you're right, they've been a total and utter consumer failure, so
few people worldwide bother with one.
Whilst working on System X I was told by someone from BT that the
central exchange only actually needed 99 to recognize 999, and the
satellite treated 999 as a normal call to its parent.
Of course mobile phones are crap too - what consumer product is not,
these days? - but they are not so crappy that people with a choice don't
use them.,
When I last had a smartphone, it literally took me several calls to
myself (from my landline) before I worked out how to answer an incoming
call - an ordinary one, not a whatsapp or anything else fancy one.
Swiping is NOT intuitive to someone who has not encountered it before.
On 17/02/2026 21:39, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
When I last had a smartphone, it literally took me several calls to
myself (from my landline) before I worked out how to answer an incoming
call - an ordinary one, not a whatsapp or anything else fancy one.
Swiping is NOT intuitive to someone who has not encountered it before.
AGREED!
On 17/02/2026 21:39, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
When I last had a smartphone, it literally took me several calls to
myself (from my landline) before I worked out how to answer an incoming
call - an ordinary one, not a whatsapp or anything else fancy one.
Swiping is NOT intuitive to someone who has not encountered it before.
AGREED!
On 18/02/2026 10:49, JMB99 wrote:
On 17/02/2026 21:39, J. P. Gilliver wrote:To be honest neither is button pushing nor knob twiddling (quiet in the
When I last had a smartphone, it literally took me several calls to
myself (from my landline) before I worked out how to answer an incoming
call - an ordinary one, not a whatsapp or anything else fancy one.
Swiping is NOT intuitive to someone who has not encountered it before.
AGREED!
back row there!) or lifting a handset....
Or clicking with a mouse...
It is the lack of uniformity that rankles
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 17/02/2026 21:39, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
When I last had a smartphone, it literally took me several calls to
myself (from my landline) before I worked out how to answer an incoming
call - an ordinary one, not a whatsapp or anything else fancy one.
Swiping is NOT intuitive to someone who has not encountered it before.
AGREED!
I suspect that much the same was said when phones got a dial and you didnrCOt need to speak to the operator except to make a trunk call.
Back in the sixties I can well remember an older colleague banging the
phone rest rCyto connect to the operatorrCO and getting no reply, instead of dialling 0.
On 17/02/2026 08:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Of course mobile phones are crap too - what consumer product is not,
these days? - but they are not so crappy that people with a choice don't
use them.,
You only have to listen to news programmes on the radio to confirm that.
Every day you hear them taking a call from someone using a mobile
phone then eventually you hear 'we will see if we can get a better line' which usually means they call their landline number and then everything
is fine.
On 17/02/2026 08:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Of course mobile phones are crap too - what consumer product is not,
these days? - but they are not so crappy that people with a choice don't use them.,
You only have to listen to news programmes on the radio to confirm that.
Every day you hear them taking a call from someone using a mobile
phone then eventually you hear 'we will see if we can get a better line' which usually means they call their landline number and then everything
is fine.
On 2026/2/18 12:5:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/02/2026 10:49, JMB99 wrote:
On 17/02/2026 21:39, J. P. Gilliver wrote:To be honest neither is button pushing nor knob twiddling (quiet in the
When I last had a smartphone, it literally took me several calls to
myself (from my landline) before I worked out how to answer an incoming >>>> call - an ordinary one, not a whatsapp or anything else fancy one.
Swiping is NOT intuitive to someone who has not encountered it before.
AGREED!
back row there!) or lifting a handset....
Or clicking with a mouse...
True, of course. However, most of those - especially button pushing -
are familiar from other equipment; swiping is new to anyone using a
touch screen for the first time - which in many cases still applies to smartphone usage, touch screens still not being common on many things.
It is the lack of uniformity that ranklesThat certainly doesn't help either. (Though I _think_ answering an
incoming call _tends_ to be "swipe right" across most ['phone] OSs.)
'To start, insert the SIM card'
Yeah, and how do I do that?
It isn't just phone-ins, they lose pre-arranged connections to their
local reporters, interviewees and even V.I.P.s, when there would have
been plenty of time to set up a proper connection.
On 18/02/2026 14:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
'To start, insert the SIM card'
Yeah, and how do I do that?
And presumably tells you connect to a website to find how?
9 is also a local number code. Whilst working on System X I was told by someone from BT that the central exchange only actually needed 99 to recognize 999, and the satellite treated 999 as a normal call to its
parent.
On 16/02/2026 19:35, Mike Humphrey wrote:
9 (999), and one
digit (usually 8)
9 is also a local number code. Whilst working on System X I was told
by someone from BT that the central exchange only actually needed 99
to recognize 999, and the satellite treated 999 as a normal call to
its parent.
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 17/02/2026 08:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Of course mobile phones are crap too - what consumer product is not,
these days? - but they are not so crappy that people with a choice don't >> > use them.,
You only have to listen to news programmes on the radio to confirm that.
Every day you hear them taking a call from someone using a mobile
phone then eventually you hear 'we will see if we can get a better line'
which usually means they call their landline number and then everything
is fine.
It isn't just phone-ins, they lose pre-arranged connections to their
local reporters, interviewees and even V.I.P.s, when there would have
been plenty of time to set up a proper connection.
Some mobile 'phones, even with a good signal, have audio quality that
sounds as though the user is standing with their back to it.
On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 13:25:24 +0000, Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 17/02/2026 08:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Of course mobile phones are crap too - what consumer product is not,
these days? - but they are not so crappy that people with a choice don't >>>> use them.,
You only have to listen to news programmes on the radio to confirm that. >>> Every day you hear them taking a call from someone using a mobile
phone then eventually you hear 'we will see if we can get a better line' >>> which usually means they call their landline number and then everything
is fine.
It isn't just phone-ins, they lose pre-arranged connections to their
local reporters, interviewees and even V.I.P.s, when there would have
been plenty of time to set up a proper connection.
Some mobile 'phones, even with a good signal, have audio quality that
sounds as though the user is standing with their back to it.
Compared to a desk set with a good handset with a carbon
microphone, all cell phones are crap in both send and receieve.
The best voice phone set up for audio is an ISDN
circuit.
On 25/02/2026 12:56, Julian Macassey wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 13:25:24 +0000, Liz Tuddenham
<liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote: > JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 17/02/2026 08:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Of course mobile phones are crap too - what consumer product is not, >>>> these days? - but they are not so crappy that people with a choice don't >>>> use them.,
You only have to listen to news programmes on the radio to confirm that. >>> Every day you hear them taking a call from someone using a mobile
phone then eventually you hear 'we will see if we can get a better line' >>> which usually means they call their landline number and then everything >>> is fine.
It isn't just phone-ins, they lose pre-arranged connections to their
local reporters, interviewees and even V.I.P.s, when there would have
been plenty of time to set up a proper connection.
Some mobile 'phones, even with a good signal, have audio quality that
sounds as though the user is standing with their back to it.
Compared to a desk set with a good handset with a carbon
microphone, all cell phones are crap in both send and receieve.
The best voice phone set up for audio is an ISDN
circuit.
Best i had was voip and a desk handset
No noise at all
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 12:56, Julian Macassey wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 13:25:24 +0000, Liz TuddenhamBest i had was voip and a desk handset
<liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote: > JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote: >>>>
On 17/02/2026 08:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Of course mobile phones are crap too - what consumer product is not, >>>>>> these days? - but they are not so crappy that people with a choice don't >>>>>> use them.,
You only have to listen to news programmes on the radio to confirm that. >>>>> Every day you hear them taking a call from someone using a mobile >>>>> phone then eventually you hear 'we will see if we can get a better line' >>>>> which usually means they call their landline number and then everything >>>>> is fine.
It isn't just phone-ins, they lose pre-arranged connections to their
local reporters, interviewees and even V.I.P.s, when there would have
been plenty of time to set up a proper connection.
Some mobile 'phones, even with a good signal, have audio quality that
sounds as though the user is standing with their back to it.
Compared to a desk set with a good handset with a carbon
microphone, all cell phones are crap in both send and receieve.
The best voice phone set up for audio is an ISDN
circuit.
No noise at all
I have a Telephone Balancing Unit fitted with a headset with an electret
mic on a boom. I can select a flat response or three degrees of HF
boost and amplitude compression for hard-of-hearing friends. It gives
full (telephone) bandwidth audio onto the line.
I once used it to contribute to a local radio programme; the results
were dreadful. It sounded as though they had left a correction circuit
in the line for damping the resonanaces of a carbon mic.
On 25/02/2026 14:01, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 12:56, Julian Macassey wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 13:25:24 +0000, Liz TuddenhamBest i had was voip and a desk handset
<liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote: > JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote: >>>>
On 17/02/2026 08:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Of course mobile phones are crap too - what consumer product is
not, these days? - but they are not so crappy that people with a >>>>>> choice don't use them.,
You only have to listen to news programmes on the radio to confirm that.
Every day you hear them taking a call from someone using a mobile >>>>> phone then eventually you hear 'we will see if we can get a better line'
which usually means they call their landline number and then everything >>>>> is fine.
It isn't just phone-ins, they lose pre-arranged connections to their >>>> local reporters, interviewees and even V.I.P.s, when there would have >>>> been plenty of time to set up a proper connection.
Some mobile 'phones, even with a good signal, have audio quality that >>>> sounds as though the user is standing with their back to it.
Compared to a desk set with a good handset with a carbon
microphone, all cell phones are crap in both send and receieve.
The best voice phone set up for audio is an ISDN
circuit.
No noise at all
I have a Telephone Balancing Unit fitted with a headset with an electret mic on a boom. I can select a flat response or three degrees of HF
boost and amplitude compression for hard-of-hearing friends. It gives
full (telephone) bandwidth audio onto the line.
I once used it to contribute to a local radio programme; the results
were dreadful. It sounded as though they had left a correction circuit
in the line for damping the resonanaces of a carbon mic.
My impression of broadcast sound engineers is that whilst there are some superb ones, the run-of-the-mill cloth eared VU meter gazer has little
or no understanding of sound or the kit he is called upon to manage...
Compared to a desk set with a good handset with a carbon microphone, all
cell phones are crap in both send and receieve.
The best voice phone set up for audio is an ISDN circuit.
Good as ISDN and G.711 is, I find that G.729 on a mobile phone connection sounds nicer.
On 25/02/2026 19:55, David Higton wrote:
Good as ISDN and G.711 is, I find that G.729 on a mobile phone connection sounds nicer.
Are you sure you don't mean G.722?
G.729 is an essentially obsolete low bit rate codec, with no audio
bandwidth over G.711, so is always going to be worse than G.711.
Although it used to be common on VoIP, I've never heard of its use on
mobile voice connections.
However, I think G.722 is only used in connection with VoIP, on mobile phones. All mobile voice codecs tend to be vocoder types.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 00:03:16 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| Messages: | 196,157 |