|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > AT-T wireless service > February 2008 > Re: iPhone flop in the UK?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: iPhone flop in the UK?
|
|
| Mark Thompson 2008-01-31, 4:33 am |
| "Synapse Syndrome" < synapse@NOSPAMgomez4
04.elitemail.org> wrote:
>
> Er, what are you talking about? The UK, and Europe in general have been far
> ahead of the US in uptake of mobile technology in this sector. 2G, 3G and
> beyond. Do you have any idea? No, is the answer. Do some reading. I've
> been travelling between the US and Europe since the mid 80's and heavily
> throughout the late 90's and early this decade, so I have no doubt to what I
> am saying right now. Mobiles were ubiquitous much earlier in the UK than
> they were in the US.
what? when did that happen? the US is on a full scale transition to free
802.11 wireless, the old, slow 3G network doesn't stand a chance against
a "free" service.
everyone knows cell phone companies are coming to an end. but only
America saw it first and decided not to invest in a poor, slow and only
"for pay" technology.
everything that is internet based should be FREE.
just like America.
learn about the future of IP calls.
the systems in the UK, Europe and Japan are completely laughable.
free is better, trust me!
-
| |
| Synapse Syndrome 2008-01-31, 4:33 am |
| "Mark Thompson" <markt@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:markt-263052.22180130012008@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net...
>
>
>
> what? when did that happen? the US is on a full scale transition to free
> 802.11 wireless, the old, slow 3G network doesn't stand a chance against
> a "free" service.
>
> everyone knows cell phone companies are coming to an end. but only
> America saw it first and decided not to invest in a poor, slow and only
> "for pay" technology.
>
> everything that is internet based should be FREE.
>
> just like America.
>
> learn about the future of IP calls.
>
> the systems in the UK, Europe and Japan are completely laughable.
>
> free is better, trust me!
I see you have been doing some reading, and that was a nice and squirmy
attempt at a back-pedal on your original bullshit statement. You come back
with a development that has seen no major adoption yet, and there is no
evidence, or past history, to say that the US will be any faster to adopt it
than anywhere else.
Well, anyway, I am new to this newsgroup. I know have many Mac using
friends, possibly nearly as many as PC owners; certainly more than average,
due to the nature of my work, and I have extensive use of Macs that goes
back around 15 years. But when it come to Usenet, the clowns really come
out.
So far I have seen a couple of people who have reasoned arguments, or
balanced views, and I respect people like that. But what I really am here
for is for some amusement, from truely culls clowns. Have you met
Genie-Boy?
ss.
| |
| George Graves 2008-01-31, 4:33 am |
| On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:18:01 -0800, Mark Thompson wrote
(in article <markt-263052.22180130012008@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net> ):
> "Synapse Syndrome" < synapse@NOSPAMgomez4
04.elitemail.org> wrote:
>
>
> what? when did that happen? the US is on a full scale transition to free
> 802.11 wireless, the old, slow 3G network doesn't stand a chance against
> a "free" service.
>
> everyone knows cell phone companies are coming to an end. but only
> America saw it first and decided not to invest in a poor, slow and only
> "for pay" technology.
>
> everything that is internet based should be FREE.
>
> just like America.
You think America is "free"?
Nice delusion. I wish I could share it. Unfortunately, reality...
| |
|
| Mark Thompson wrote:
> what? when did that happen? the US is on a full scale transition to free
> 802.11 wireless, the old, slow 3G network doesn't stand a chance against
> a "free" service.
The failed experiences of "free" municipal wireless proves there is no
such "full scale transition to free wireless".
> everyone knows cell phone companies are coming to an end. but only
> America saw it first and decided not to invest in a poor, slow and only
> "for pay" technology.
"Everyone" does not include all the private investors and stock holders
in cellular where investment is alive and well in this pay for use
infrastructure.
> everything that is internet based should be FREE.
Anything that is free, has no value to your (open source excluded).
> just like America.
Federal welfare is not free, the tax payers pay for it.
> learn about the future of IP calls.
IP telephony is not near as good as traditional telephone calls.
> free is better, trust me!
Please review Economics 101.
| |
| Stewart 2008-01-31, 10:33 am |
| On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:33:13 -0800, George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>You think America is "free"?
>
It HAS to be free. Nobody would fsking BUY it, would they!
| |
| George Graves 2008-01-31, 12:33 pm |
| On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:29:06 -0800, Stewart wrote
(in article < 2om3q3hcbno4cks5bdva
h2i2obm6lutpck@4ax.com> ):
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:33:13 -0800, George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> It HAS to be free. Nobody would fsking BUY it, would they!
>
Ask the Chinese. they ARE buying it!
| |
| George Graves 2008-01-31, 12:33 pm |
| On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:19:28 -0800, DTC wrote
(in article <bPkoj.1995$uE.1084@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net> ):
> Mark Thompson wrote:
>
> The failed experiences of "free" municipal wireless proves there is no
> such "full scale transition to free wireless".
>
>
> "Everyone" does not include all the private investors and stock holders
> in cellular where investment is alive and well in this pay for use
> infrastructure.
>
>
> Anything that is free, has no value to your (open source excluded).
>
>
> Federal welfare is not free, the tax payers pay for it.
>
>
> IP telephony is not near as good as traditional telephone calls.
I disagree. I replaced "Ma Bell" with Comcast VOIP over a year ago and
frankly, except that its WAY cheaper and has more features, I notice NO
difference in service, quality, or reliability.
| |
|
| George Graves wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:19:28 -0800, DTC wrote
>
> I disagree. I replaced "Ma Bell" with Comcast VOIP over a year ago and
> frankly, except that its WAY cheaper and has more features, I notice NO
> difference in service, quality, or reliability.
In some cases VoIP can give telco a good run for the money, but I was
mostly referring to the masses that look for think VoIP is a magic
bullet to reduce costs, in spite of any quality issues.
In my case, I need direct 9600 bps modem connections and VoIP failed
at that.
| |
| George Graves 2008-01-31, 3:34 pm |
| On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:37:52 -0800, DTC wrote
(in article <4Aooj.5113$0o7.1506@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net> ):
> George Graves wrote:
>
> In some cases VoIP can give telco a good run for the money, but I was
> mostly referring to the masses that look for think VoIP is a magic
> bullet to reduce costs, in spite of any quality issues.
If one has a good, reliable, broadband connection, there should be no quality
issues. I know people who use Vonage over cable modem and they have good
quality too. OTOH, I have seen computer-based sotware VoIP systems that are
simply lousy.
>
> In my case, I need direct 9600 bps modem connections and VoIP failed
> at that.
You really need a good broadband connection for VoIP to work optimally. Cable
modem seems to work best.
| |
| PeterBP 2008-02-01, 4:33 am |
| George Graves <gmgraves2@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 06:19:28 -0800, DTC wrote
> (in article <bPkoj.1995$uE.1084@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net> ):
>
>
> I disagree. I replaced "Ma Bell" with Comcast VOIP over a year ago and
> frankly, except that its WAY cheaper and has more features, I notice NO
> difference in service, quality, or reliability.
IP, IMW, has transition issues, but once they're nailed down, VOIP is
just as good - better if you factor in price.
--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals
"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!
| |
| PeterBP 2008-02-01, 4:33 am |
| Synapse Syndrome < synapse@NOSPAMgomez4
04.elitemail.org> wrote:
> "Mark Thompson" <markt@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:markt-263052.22180130012008@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net...
>
>
> I see you have been doing some reading, and that was a nice and squirmy
> attempt at a back-pedal on your original bullshit statement. You come back
> with a development that has seen no major adoption yet, and there is no
> evidence, or past history, to say that the US will be any faster to adopt it
> than anywhere else.
>
> Well, anyway, I am new to this newsgroup. I know have many Mac using
> friends, possibly nearly as many as PC owners; certainly more than average,
> due to the nature of my work, and I have extensive use of Macs that goes
> back around 15 years. But when it come to Usenet, the clowns really come
> out.
That is generally true - if you read around usenet, you'll find examples
of idiocy, delusion, sociopathy and general nastyness that far exceeds
what you find in your neighbourhood fo the Real World.
This is nothing inherent to either Mac users, mac advocated, windows
users, windows advocates, or people who inhabit the advocacy groups.
>
> So far I have seen a couple of people who have reasoned arguments, or
> balanced views, and I respect people like that. But what I really am here
> for is for some amusement, from truely culls clowns. Have you met
> Genie-Boy?
>
> ss.
This stuff that goes on here in csma is better termed "greek tragedy"
than "amusement", but YMMV.
--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals
"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!
| |
| David W Studeman 2008-02-18, 3:33 pm |
| DTC wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
>
> In some cases VoIP can give telco a good run for the money, but I was
> mostly referring to the masses that look for think VoIP is a magic
> bullet to reduce costs, in spite of any quality issues.
>
> In my case, I need direct 9600 bps modem connections and VoIP failed
> at that.
Well of course, most voip uses the g.729 codec which needs 26kbs. Other
codecs like g.711 are more hungry but work with fax. If you have a low
latency connection under 50ms and low jitter, voip can be better than
analog. I once had ISDN and the quality there was superior to analog but it
used a full 64k pipe while on voice. Believe me, analog phone lines are at
the bottom of the food chain. I use Packet8 over dry loop dsl through a
cobalt raq converted to a firewall/router. It's sad that people are forever
comparing something that has a lot of untapped potential with a narrowband
analog pots line. The quality of the phone plugged into your voip system
has a great deal to do with quality as well. I went DECT6 on mine, my old
2.4 ghz phone was subject to interference from all kinds of unknowns and
just didn't sound as good, cordless phones have their own codecs too and
DECT 6.0 is superior to all previous ones.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|