|
Home > Archive > Voice Over IP in UK > September 2005 > Cost benefit of VoIP
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 |
Cost benefit of VoIP
|
|
|
| I hope this post doesn't cause rage. I'm seriously just after a good
discussion.
I currently use VoIP. Lots of various service providers here and there
just to check it out. It's pretty much a toy for me - I don't rely on it
anywhere - But I still need to get involved with it a bit to understand
it, just in case, it ever comes up with other people I work with.
VoIP is a service, and as with most services, there's a cost involved.
The thing is, I can't find/see VoIP as having any cost benefits. It's
certainly great from a tech. point-of-view. Example, be anywhere in the
world with laptop and WiFi hotspot to make/receive calls on a normal UK
number, or whatever. I guess that example has a cost benefit in itself
(no international roaming charges or changing numbers all the time with
customers etc.).
But, say, for me at my home office in the UK with broadband, I don't
really save any money. I'm thinking about out going calls here
E.g. 1899 service gives me cheaper calls out + combine that with the
many others like that. Routing is easily achieved and hassle-free with a
£15 dialer box or even Asterix.
I hope someone knows what I'm getting at. I'm lost. Need a point in the
right direction.
I'd really like to know why VoIP then? And more importantly, which
providers? 'cos clearly all the ones I've tried so far (main/well known
ones) are either more expensive or, if cheaper, just unreliable.
Current use:
Skype with SkypeIn UK landline number for when I'm abroad and
friends/family want to talk at pre-arranged times. It's cheap for them
(3pence per call with 1899). Most reliable service. HTTPS proxy support
is its best feature IMO, considering some networks abroad are quite poor
for otherwise direct routing to UK/USA.
Sipgate account and its landline number. Because it was free. Difficult
to test benefit here as it's so unreliable. After all, it is free though.
VoIPCheap/Buster - Handy for Telephone Banking, free and all done
through computer speakers. Works fine, but would be too embarrassing
with business calls its intermittent unreliability.
Others, on-off. Either just sign-up for short while (month) or free
trial online.
So far only using softphones. Because I can't quite see the cost benefit
(yet), I haven't got an ATA. I do plan on setting up an Asterix@Home
server soon though.
Thanks.
| |
| dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2005-09-06, 5:45 pm |
| On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:15:45 +0100, "T." <nntp-DOT-dump@zen.co.uk>
wrote:
>But, say, for me at my home office in the UK with broadband, I don't
>really save any money. I'm thinking about out going calls here
>
>E.g. 1899 service gives me cheaper calls out + combine that with the
>many others like that. Routing is easily achieved and hassle-free with a
>£15 dialer box or even Asterix.
>
>I hope someone knows what I'm getting at. I'm lost. Need a point in the
>right direction.
By Broadband I presume you mean ADSL down a BT line ! where you to go
over to TW broadband you could sling your BT line for starters which
would be a saving of at least 10.40 a month.
>I'd really like to know why VoIP then? And more importantly, which
>providers? 'cos clearly all the ones I've tried so far (main/well known
>ones) are either more expensive or, if cheaper, just unreliable.
For quality you just couldn't beat Vonage with Voipfone has a second
choice although the happenings of tonight has but a question mark over
them regarding reliability in my book .
>Sipgate account and its landline number. Because it was free. Difficult
>to test benefit here as it's so unreliable. After all, it is free though.
Unreliable in many ways ok to play around with but for serious
reliable telephonic communication any other provider EXCEPT Sipgate .
| |
|
| dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>
> By Broadband I presume you mean ADSL down a BT line ! where you to go
> over to TW broadband you could sling your BT line for starters which
> would be a saving of at least 10.40 a month.
>
Yes, ADSL.
I don't trust VoIP enough to ditch my landline. It's also used for
incoming fax.
Say there was an emergency and I need to dial 999? And please don't say
use mobiles.
| |
| dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2005-09-06, 5:45 pm |
| On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:27:36 +0100, "T." <nntp-DOT-dump@zen.co.uk>
wrote:
>dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>
>Yes, ADSL.
>
>I don't trust VoIP enough to ditch my landline. It's also used for
>incoming fax.
>
>Say there was an emergency and I need to dial 999? And please don't say
>use mobiles.
Vonage
| |
|
| dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:27:36 +0100, "T." <nntp-DOT-dump@zen.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Vonage
It'd be danegerous. Think power-cut.
| |
| dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2005-09-06, 8:45 pm |
| On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:42:39 +0100, "T." <nntp-DOT-dump@zen.co.uk>
wrote:
>dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>
>It'd be danegerous. Think power-cut.
Once in a blue moon in the UK these days and a poor excuse for
avoiding VOIP anyway with any of the modern cordless phones
you need power and a fixed phone is a step backwards in my
opinion.
| |
|
| >>It'd be danegerous. Think power-cut.
> Once in a blue moon in the UK these days
you obviously don't live in the countryside.
| |
|
| In article <id6sh1hbs9lf8vsr1bd7846c1krkg5pfji@4ax.com>,
dexter@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:27:36 +0100, "T." <nntp-DOT-dump@zen.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> Vonage
>
What if that emergency gave you a power cut?
This is a flaw with all VOIP, if you have a power cut, you lost your
phone.
| |
|
| In article <431e1ba8$0$21147$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, nntp-DOT-
dump@zen.co.uk says...
>
> It'd be danegerous. Think power-cut.
>
I just put that, before I read this.
| |
|
| In article <t59sh1hkg11orq1tdta7t9dc3b224fpi6s@4ax.com>,
dexter@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> Once in a blue moon in the UK these days and a poor excuse for
at themoment, but it can happen and from what we have been hearing,
powercuts could be the norm in the next few years.
> avoiding VOIP anyway with any of the modern cordless phones
> you need power and a fixed phone is a step backwards in my
> opinion.
>
I have got a corded phone connected for emergencies, I don't know anyone
who have not got a cheap corded phone connected.
I got cordless phones, the whole house is covered with them, almost
every room in the house here has a cordless phone, but I would not get
rid of my old Tandy corded phone.
| |
|
| In article <431e074c$0$3295$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, nntp-DOT-
dump@zen.co.uk says...
> I hope this post doesn't cause rage. I'm seriously just after a good
> discussion.
>
>
At the moment, VOIP is not worth bothering with for many people, unless
you just like the technology and want to muck around with it. BT charges
most people in this country a line rental, which is needed even if VOIP
is used, and a lot of land line phone suppliers prices are very good
now, even beating VOIP suppliers prices.
I came onto this newsgroup, because I was thinking of getting VOIP and
wanted to know more about it, but got to the stage where as you realise,
it is not cost affective.
If you got other people living with you and they want their own phone,
then it could be useful or if you want a second line for business.
I am not going to say what is reliable and what is not, because I don't
use VOIP, apart from MSN and Skype. At the moment, Skype/MSN does what I
want, the extra cost of getting VOIP is just not worth it for me.
I like the techonlogy, but too many things to go wrong.
A mate of mine is looking at VOIP, but only so he can have another line
for his fax and maybe have another line for his daughter, so she don't
run up his bills.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-09-07, 7:45 am |
|
"AD C" <graphi47uk@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d88abe1e78b61ee9897b9@news.metronet.co.uk
[snip]
> I like the techonlogy, but too many things to go wrong.
That can be said of a lot of things. I haven't had a serious problem for
months. YMMV of course.
> A mate of mine is looking at VOIP, but only so he can
> have another line for his fax and maybe have another line
> for his daughter, so she don't run up his bills.
Fax over IP is still rather unreliable as the required protocol isn't
supported by most (not all) providers, in any case I rarely use my
standalone machine for incoming faxes now, I have a fax-to-email number
which delivers incoming faxes as emails. I just use it for sending, which
doesn't occupy the ordinary landline for long enough to require a
dedicated line.
Ivor
| |
|
|
"T." <nntp-DOT-dump@zen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:431e074c$0$3295$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> I hope this post doesn't cause rage. I'm seriously just after a good
> discussion.
>
> I currently use VoIP. Lots of various service providers here and there
> just to check it out. It's pretty much a toy for me - I don't rely on it
> anywhere - But I still need to get involved with it a bit to understand
> it, just in case, it ever comes up with other people I work with.
>
> VoIP is a service, and as with most services, there's a cost involved.
> The thing is, I can't find/see VoIP as having any cost benefits. It's
> certainly great from a tech. point-of-view. Example, be anywhere in the
> world with laptop and WiFi hotspot to make/receive calls on a normal UK
> number, or whatever. I guess that example has a cost benefit in itself
> (no international roaming charges or changing numbers all the time with
> customers etc.).
Dont forget, consumer voip is riding on the back of corperate voip.
where there saving are there and can be Very large.
>
> But, say, for me at my home office in the UK with broadband, I don't
> really save any money. I'm thinking about out going calls here
>
> E.g. 1899 service gives me cheaper calls out + combine that with the
> many others like that. Routing is easily achieved and hassle-free with a
> £15 dialer box or even Asterix.
>
Cost is not every thing. But think about the need for more than one line or
having to seem to a customer that you are based nearby.
> I hope someone knows what I'm getting at. I'm lost. Need a point in the
> right direction.
>
> I'd really like to know why VoIP then? And more importantly, which
> providers? 'cos clearly all the ones I've tried so far (main/well known
> ones) are either more expensive or, if cheaper, just unreliable.
>
I think you need to workout what you are looking for. If its just cheap
calls then you are looking in the wrong place. Voip is just another trnsport
meduim for voice calls.
>
>
> Current use:
> Skype with SkypeIn UK landline number for when I'm abroad and
> friends/family want to talk at pre-arranged times. It's cheap for them
> (3pence per call with 1899). Most reliable service. HTTPS proxy support
> is its best feature IMO, considering some networks abroad are quite poor
> for otherwise direct routing to UK/USA.
>
> Sipgate account and its landline number. Because it was free. Difficult
> to test benefit here as it's so unreliable. After all, it is free though.
>
> VoIPCheap/Buster - Handy for Telephone Banking, free and all done
> through computer speakers. Works fine, but would be too embarrassing
> with business calls its intermittent unreliability.
>
> Others, on-off. Either just sign-up for short while (month) or free
> trial online.
Its seems that cost is you prime concern, then that being so you will have
to stick with the companies you have mentioned and accept that you dont get
something for nothing in this world.
>
> So far only using softphones. Because I can't quite see the cost benefit
> (yet), I haven't got an ATA.
Thats a fair point as you are onlylooking to save money.
>I do plan on setting up an Asterix@Home
> server soon though.
Why ?
There is a problem at the moment where domestic customers for voip have
listened to the benefits of voip for business use and assumed they are the
same for them.
This is not realy so. The savings dont realy scale down well. Remember a
business will be using voip to call between offices and to remote workers at
peak times and in large volumes, hence making a descent saving. You sitting
in your home office making a few calls a day will take a very long time to
make any savings at all.
Ian
| |
|
| In article <o8wTe.1328$fb.912@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
a77w@yahoo.co.uk says...
>
> you obviously don't live in the countryside.
>
>
>
I don't think he lives in the real world.
| |
|
| In article <3o7mbbF4kgkhU1@individual.net>, ivor@despammed.invalid
says...
>
> That can be said of a lot of things. I haven't had a serious problem for
> months. YMMV of course.
Maybe so, but you now got to rely on equipment that could fail for your
phone calls. Your ISP could have a problem. My next door neighbour is on
BT Broadband and he haves so many problems I am surprised he is still
with them.
Every sunday at about 2pm, his internet goes off, and the only way to
get it back is to switch the router off and back on. I thought it may
have been a router problem, but I have had a look and can't find
anything. I have also lent him my old router for a week and the same
thing happens.
So ISps can have problems and some are worse than others, mine is pretty
good, but they do have their bad days.
Then you got the router, that can go wrong, I know electronics are more
realible than ever now, but that is still another link that can wrong in
the chain.
Then Electric, if it goes off, you are in deep doggy poos.
>
>
> Fax over IP is still rather unreliable as the required protocol isn't
> supported by most (not all) providers, in any case I rarely use my
> standalone machine for incoming faxes now, I have a fax-to-email number
> which delivers incoming faxes as emails. I just use it for sending, which
> doesn't occupy the ordinary landline for long enough to require a
> dedicated line.
>
>
Is the fax to email number expensive for the sender?
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-09-07, 5:45 pm |
|
"AD C" <graphi47uk@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d8937cb82d12f919897c4@news.metronet.co.uk
> In article <3o7mbbF4kgkhU1@individual.net>,
> ivor@despammed.invalid says...
[snip]
>
> Is the fax to email number expensive for the sender?
The free (for the recipient) ones are usually 0870 numbers, mine is. I
don't normally agree with them but it does drastically cut down on the
junk faxes..! You can get geo numbers at a price though.
Ivor
| |
| dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2005-09-07, 5:45 pm |
| On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 18:55:13 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> You can get geo numbers at a price though.
Oh yes very expencive ( NOT ) 1.99 a month from Voipfone .
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-09-07, 5:45 pm |
|
<dexter@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:esfuh1pk18s006edfanhgnljif2h8scf7b@
4ax.com
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2005 18:55:13 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Oh yes very expencive ( NOT ) 1.99 a month from Voipfone .
Read the post again. I was talking about fax-to-email.
Ivor
| |
| Paul Cupis 2005-09-07, 5:45 pm |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
> <dexter@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:esfuh1pk18s006edfanhgnljif2h8scf7b@
4ax.com
>
> Read the post again. I was talking about fax-to-email.
It does appear from the voipfone site as though they also offer
geographic fax-to-email for 1.99/month - I've haven't looked to see if
there are any conditions, nor do I have any experience with their product.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-09-07, 5:45 pm |
|
"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dfnfou$g1d$1@custnews.inweb.co.uk
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> It does appear from the voipfone site as though they also
> offer geographic fax-to-email for 1.99/month - I've
> haven't looked to see if there are any conditions, nor do
> I have any experience with their product.
Fair enough, I wasn't aware of that. However given that I'm stuck with at
least one landline I might as well use that as a fax line. The voice calls
are all on Sipgate now, and it's been working fine for months thanks,
Stefan/Dex.
Ivor
| |
|
| dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>
> Once in a blue moon in the UK these days and a poor excuse for
> avoiding VOIP anyway with any of the modern cordless phones
> you need power and a fixed phone is a step backwards in my
> opinion.
Who said anything about avoiding VoIP?
I'm saying I'd avoid getting rid of a normal traditional landline.
| |
| Andrew Hodgson 2005-09-07, 5:45 pm |
| On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:35:39 +0100, dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 23:27:36 +0100, "T." <nntp-DOT-dump@zen.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>Vonage
The conditions specificly state that it should not be used as a
substitute where 999 is concerned due to the powercut/no Internet
issue, and also because you would have to speak to the operator in
order to get location details.
Thanks.
Andrew.
--
Andrew Hodgson in Bromyard, Herefordshire, UK.
My Email: use <andrew at hodgsonfamily dot org>.
| |
| Andrew Hodgson 2005-09-07, 5:45 pm |
| On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:15:45 +0100, "T." <nntp-DOT-dump@zen.co.uk>
wrote:
>I hope this post doesn't cause rage. I'm seriously just after a good
>discussion.
Yes I think it is a good post.
>
>I currently use VoIP. Lots of various service providers here and there
>just to check it out. It's pretty much a toy for me - I don't rely on it
>anywhere - But I still need to get involved with it a bit to understand
>it, just in case, it ever comes up with other people I work with.
>
>VoIP is a service, and as with most services, there's a cost involved.
>The thing is, I can't find/see VoIP as having any cost benefits. It's
>certainly great from a tech. point-of-view. Example, be anywhere in the
>world with laptop and WiFi hotspot to make/receive calls on a normal UK
>number, or whatever. I guess that example has a cost benefit in itself
>(no international roaming charges or changing numbers all the time with
>customers etc.).
Yes.
>
>But, say, for me at my home office in the UK with broadband, I don't
>really save any money. I'm thinking about out going calls here
I think it depends on the volume of the calls. I have seen several
reviews and people post in this newsgroup saying that they have saved
money on their business where most of the calls have been in the
daytime, and they use something like Vonage on a business rate tariff,
or Sipgate to give them cheaper calls in the day then BT could give
them.
>
[...]
>I'd really like to know why VoIP then? And more importantly, which
>providers? 'cos clearly all the ones I've tried so far (main/well known
>ones) are either more expensive or, if cheaper, just unreliable.
I think you need to work out what you want from the system (i.e, a new
incoming number, cheaper rates than BT in the daytime, a new office
system that doesn't have several sets of wires for ethernet and the
phone system etc). I think you are correct in saying that there are
not many benefits of the Vonage/Sipgate sort of deals for someone who
is on their own, and makes most of their calls through cheap means.
This is originally why I didn't go with anyone for a long time,
because I just didn't see the point. Now that we were seriously
thinking about getting a new line, I can see the point more than I
previously could. We are with Vonage currently, but may change to
another system if this one doesn't suit us, and even if we don't go
with them, I am glad to have had the experience.
None of the services are necessarily bad, I just think they are
targeted at specific people/purposes, and if you don't meet those
criteria, then I don't think there is much point.
Andrew.
--
Andrew Hodgson in Bromyard, Herefordshire, UK.
My Email: use <andrew at hodgsonfamily dot org>.
| |
|
| Ian wrote:
>
>
> Cost is not every thing. But think about the need for more than one line or
> having to seem to a customer that you are based nearby.
>
Correct. Value for money is everything. I can see your point about the
more than one line thing, or "local" numbers. For me though, that
doesn't apply (apart from the SkypeIn number that I have). If it did
though, I think that kind of service is currently available at a value
for money price (e.g. SkypeIn, Gizmo SIP phone service, voipfone, etc.)
Like I said, in my OP, I'm talking mainly about cost of outgoing calls.
>
>
> I think you need to workout what you are looking for. If its just cheap
> calls then you are looking in the wrong place. Voip is just another trnsport
> meduim for voice calls.
I think that answers my question then.
Incoming: VoIP is worth it.
Outgoing: don't bother.
>
>
> Its seems that cost is you prime concern, then that being so you will have
> to stick with the companies you have mentioned and accept that you dont get
> something for nothing in this world.
No. Value for money is my main concern. There are some services from the
above that I use which do actually give me something for nothing, but I
do agree that nothing is really like that, in that, they're not always
reliable.
>
>
> Thats a fair point as you are onlylooking to save money.
Save money? I'm looking to not have to pay out more than I'm currently
doing. If it then saves money, then that's great, a bonus if you like.
Where is the business benefit for me? Seeing how this thread is going,
I'm thinking none.
>
>
> Why ?
To play with it, understand it, learn more, and so on. Maybe I can even
find somesort of setup which is then actually useful, to me.
>
> There is a problem at the moment where domestic customers for voip have
> listened to the benefits of voip for business use and assumed they are the
> same for them.
> This is not realy so. The savings dont realy scale down well. Remember a
> business will be using voip to call between offices and to remote workers at
> peak times and in large volumes, hence making a descent saving. You sitting
> in your home office making a few calls a day will take a very long time to
> make any savings at all.
>
Few calls a day? My current usage is about 70 hours a month. All to UK
domestic landline/mobile. I pay no more than £20/month for that
(collective across services), which also includes mobile email over
GPRS. I don't use the BT landline (which runs the broadband) for calls,
just outgoing faxes for once in a blue moon.
| |
|
| >
> Save money? I'm looking to not have to pay out more than I'm currently
> doing. If it then saves money, then that's great, a bonus if you like.
>
> Where is the business benefit for me? Seeing how this thread is going,
> I'm thinking none.
>
As a business you should be aware that to provide a level of service you
will have to make capital purchases and ongoing charges such as phone calls,
These are offset against you Tax and Vat. Therefore saving money is not
realy that important.
>
> To play with it, understand it, learn more, and so on. Maybe I can even
> find somesort of setup which is then actually useful, to me.
>
Then the questions now why AAH, Why not Asterisk its self. You will learn
far more and have a better understanding of the workings, And be able to
upgrade to later releases
the[vbcol=seagreen]
workers at[vbcol=seagreen]
sitting[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Few calls a day? My current usage is about 70 hours a month. All to UK
> domestic landline/mobile. I pay no more than £20/month for that
> (collective across services), which also includes mobile email over
> GPRS. I don't use the BT landline (which runs the broadband) for calls,
> just outgoing faxes for once in a blue moon.
Now to some domestic users thats a lot, but to business it is 1 line in use
about 2 hours or so a day which is low. you cannot expect to make much
savings on what you already have. What you can do is provide a better
service though by putting out a unified CLI to people you call, Diverting
incoming callers to you mobile seamlessly giving location independant
working etc.
Ian
| |
|
| In article <3o8ns3F4qlnoU1@individual.net>, ivor@despammed.invalid
says...
>
> The free (for the recipient) ones are usually 0870 numbers, mine is. I
> don't normally agree with them but it does drastically cut down on the
> junk faxes..! You can get geo numbers at a price though.
>
Maybe so, but it isno good if you run a business.
| |
|
| In article <431f4742$0$323$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, nntp-DOT-
dump@zen.co.uk says...
>
> Who said anything about avoiding VoIP?
>
> I'm saying I'd avoid getting rid of a normal traditional landline.
>
It is not so much that I would like to get rid of my line, I would just
love to get rid of the line rental, but I know that will never happen.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2005-09-07, 8:45 pm |
|
"AD C" <graphi47uk@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d897f647bb274059897e0@news.metronet.co.uk
> In article <3o8ns3F4qlnoU1@individual.net>,
> ivor@despammed.invalid says...
>
>
> Maybe so, but it isno good if you run a business.
Possibly, but in that case you can usually offset costs against tax, so a
geo number would be affordable.
Ivor
| |
| Paul Cupis 2005-09-07, 8:45 pm |
| AD C wrote:
> In article <431f4742$0$323$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, nntp-DOT-
> dump@zen.co.uk says...
>
> It is not so much that I would like to get rid of my line, I would just
> love to get rid of the line rental, but I know that will never happen.
Well no, because then you'd be getting a service for free.
| |
|
| Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>
> Possibly, but in that case you can usually offset costs against tax, so a
> geo number would be affordable.
>
A tax rebate is the only reason to buy something else.
| |
|
| T. wrote:
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>
> A tax rebate is the only reason to buy something else.
Sorry, should read:
A tax rebate is NOT the only reason to buy something else.
| |
|
| Andrew Hodgson wrote:
>
> None of the services are necessarily bad, I just think they are
> targeted at specific people/purposes, and if you don't meet those
> criteria, then I don't think there is much point.
>
> Andrew.
Thanks for the reply.
Sounds like you're comments are spot on with my conclusions after this
thread.
| |
| Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2005-09-08, 7:45 am |
| On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 20:41:17 +0100, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk>
wrote:
>Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>It does appear from the voipfone site as though they also offer
>geographic fax-to-email for 1.99/month - I've haven't looked to see if
>there are any conditions, nor do I have any experience with their product.
The Geo fax to email works perfectly .
| |
|
| In article <dfnri4$kn5$2@custnews.inweb.co.uk>, paul@cupis.co.uk says...
>=20
> Well no, because then you'd be getting a service for free.
>=20
What service? Bt is not going to give up this line rental lark, because=20
it is easy money. I know that they need to get money for updating the=20
exchange and things like that, but I think over =A39 a month is a bit=20
much. My gas supplier do not have a meter rental, they have done away=20
with the standing change, so have my electricity suppier. the only=20
utility apart from BT that charges me a standing charge is my Welsh=20
water and hopefully that will change one day.
| |
|
| In article <3o99cqF4tkf8U1@individual.net>, ivor@despammed.invalid
says...
>
>
> Possibly, but in that case you can usually offset costs against tax, so a
> geo number would be affordable.
>
True, very true/
| |
| Paul Cupis 2005-09-08, 5:45 pm |
| AD C wrote:
> In article <dfnri4$kn5$2@custnews.inweb.co.uk>, paul@cupis.co.uk says...
>
> What service?
Errm, the phone line.
> Bt is not going to give up this line rental lark, because
> it is easy money. I know that they need to get money for updating the
> exchange and things like that,
Things like allowing you to make calls (whether via them or not), fixing
any problems, maintaining a national network etc.
> but I think over £9 a month is a bit much.
Maybe it is, but don't you know £0 is too little?
> My gas supplier do not have a meter rental, they have done away
> with the standing change, so have my electricity suppier.
Yes, but they will get money from you from your usage. You can use a BT
phone line and not pay BT for your calls (IDA, CPS, VoIP etc) - what
incentive is there for BT to do this? Line rental.
| |
| Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2005-09-08, 8:45 pm |
| On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:46:41 +0100, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk>
wrote:
>Yes, but they will get money from you from your usage. You can use a BT
>phone line and not pay BT for your calls (IDA, CPS, VoIP etc) - what
>incentive is there for BT to do this? Line rental.
I agree in part with what you say here Paul but BT turned quite a lot
of people including myself against them when they imposed Option 1
on every one of their customers and worsened their 150 customer
service at the same time . You need to have a couple of hours spare
to be able to finally connect with a human after wading through the
maze of press 1 and 2 and 3 and back to 1 if you want this and 2 if
you want the other and so on.
Unless of course you avail yourself of their offer to call you back
within an hour in which case you must take a quick Indian Language
course because it will be their Indian call center that calls you back
and you I can't understand a word they are saying hardly and visa
versa.
It is far easier to speak with Telewest customer services than it is
with BT now. If I had found myself typing this two years ago I would
have thought myself off my head but it is a fact these days.
| |
|
| Thats funny because when we used bt for our communication needs not once did
we receive an "indian" when using the call back facility.
| |
|
| In article <dfqf0n$1gqt$1@custnews.inweb.co.uk>, paul@cupis.co.uk=20
says...
>=20
> Errm, the phone line.
As been said on here before, most of these phone lines have not been=20
touched for years.
Ok, so they are replacing the poles around here, but I doubt they are=20
touching the lines.
>=20
> Things like allowing you to make calls (whether via them or not), fixing
> any problems, maintaining a national network etc.
Bt have been ripping off the public for years, they should have plenty=20
of money to do these things by now.
>=20
>=20
> Maybe it is, but don't you know =A30 is too little?
I said it would be nice, I did not say I expected it. I think =A35 a month=
=20
would be a better price.
>=20
>=20
> Yes, but they will get money from you from your usage. You can use a BT
> phone line and not pay BT for your calls (IDA, CPS, VoIP etc) - what
> incentive is there for BT to do this? Line rental.
>=20
I agree with you and as I said, I think the line rental will stay for=20
many years, unless someone comes up with another system
,
| |
|
| AD C wrote:
>
>
> I said it would be nice, I did not say I expected it. I think £5 a month
> would be a better price.
>
I'd be happy to pay that much just for incoming calls only and outgoing
emergency (999).
| |
| Paul Cupis 2005-09-09, 5:45 pm |
| Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:46:41 +0100, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> I agree in part with what you say here Paul but BT turned quite a lot
> of people including myself against them when they imposed Option 1
> on every one of their customers and worsened their 150 customer
> service at the same time.
So they should give you line rental for free for life? I think not.
| |
| Paul Cupis 2005-09-09, 5:45 pm |
| AD C wrote:
> In article <dfqf0n$1gqt$1@custnews.inweb.co.uk>, paul@cupis.co.uk
> says...
>
> As been said on here before, most of these phone lines have not been
> touched for years.
> Ok, so they are replacing the poles around here, but I doubt they are
> touching the lines.
Maybe they are, maybe they're not. We don't necessarily know. But the
telephone system does not look after/mantain/fix/improve itself, and it
is not free to do the same.
>
> Bt have been ripping off the public for years, they should have plenty
> of money to do these things by now.
>
>
> I said it would be nice, I did not say I expected it. I think £5 a month
> would be a better price.
Okay, but without knowing what the actual costs to run the network at
that level are, we just don't know, do we? Maybe it's 20p/month, maybe
it's £9/month?
| |
| Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2005-09-09, 5:45 pm |
| On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:49:20 +0100, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk>
wrote:
>So they should give you line rental for free for life? I think not.
I did not say anything about that but I certainly think it is wrong
that they forced all their customers onto option 1 effectively
a sneaky line rental increase by the back door. 1 BT line has ceased
today and the other will follow once Telewest upgrades our region to
10 Mb which should be sometime by the end of January
2006 .
| |
|
| In article <432164ff$0$525$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, nntp-DOT-
dump@zen.co.uk says...
> I'd be happy to pay that much just for incoming calls only and outgoing=
=20
> emergency (999).
>=20
If the charge was =A35 a month, maybe more people would think about VOIP.
| |
|
| In article <vdi3i15f5u4l3mcctu2odsrps9u2j3lghp@4ax.com>,
Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:49:20 +0100, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk>
> wrote:
> I did not say anything about that but I certainly think it is wrong
> that they forced all their customers onto option 1 effectively
> a sneaky line rental increase by the back door. 1 BT line has ceased
> today and the other will follow once Telewest upgrades our region to
> 10 Mb which should be sometime by the end of January
> 2006 .
>
There is a lot of people who do not have the choice, they got to have
BTlines.
| |
|
| In article <dfsejq$d21$4@custnews.inweb.co.uk>, paul@cupis.co.uk says...
> Maybe they are, maybe they're not. We don't necessarily know. But the
> telephone system does not look after/mantain/fix/improve itself, and it
> is not free to do the same.
Oh come on, BT have made enormous profits for years, they got more than=20
enough money to keep maintain the telephone system, without charging a=20
line rental.
They do it in the U.S after all. anyway, as I said before, I am not=20
expecting it free, just cheaper.
nth=20[vbcol=seagreen]
>=20
> Okay, but without knowing what the actual costs to run the network at
> that level are, we just don't know, do we? Maybe it's 20p/month, maybe
> it's =A39/month?
>=20
I doubt very much if it is =A39 a month. If it was not for the fact that=20
Bt have got competition, BT would still be charging everyone sky high=20
prices, they are still the most expensive as it is for calls.
| |
| Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2005-09-09, 5:45 pm |
| On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 20:20:34 +0100, AD C <graphi47uk@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk>
wrote:
>Oh come on, BT have made enormous profits for years, they got more than
>enough money to keep maintain the telephone system, without charging a
>line rental.
It is time BT had a radical shake up dispensing with the members of
staff that walk about all day doing nothing but carry a few sheets of
paper to make themselves look busy for starters. Don't say they don't
have these people all large companies have floor walkers  ) .
>I doubt very much if it is £9 a month. If it was not for the fact that
>Bt have got competition, BT would still be charging everyone sky high
>prices, they are still the most expensive as it is for calls.
More like £ 9 a year for many lines .
| |
|
| AD C wrote:
> In article <dfsejq$d21$4@custnews.inweb.co.uk>, paul@cupis.co.uk says...
>
>
>
>
>
> Oh come on, BT have made enormous profits for years, they got more than
> enough money to keep maintain the telephone system, without charging a
> line rental.
> They do it in the U.S after all. anyway, as I said before, I am not
> expecting it free, just cheaper.
>
It's not good to compare to the US though - Their systems are pretty
poor. Too many different standards/types, quite old technology with no
real pushes into new stuff.
The UK is actually quite advance.
| |
|
| AD C wrote:
> In article <432164ff$0$525$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, nntp-DOT-
> dump@zen.co.uk says...
>
>
>
> If the charge was £5 a month, maybe more people would think about VOIP.
Definately. In fact, I'd like to have no BT phone line, just an ADSL
feed. The emergency landline would be our "free" cable line (no chance
of ever getting rid of that 'cos we rely on its TV service). Then ATAs
all round the house with DECT phones. Each person could have their own
number.
Hmmm, I think I'm beginning to find some useful uses for VoIP here...
| |
|
| In article <4321ef54$0$525$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, nntp-DOT-
dump@zen.co.uk says...
>
> It's not good to compare to the US though - Their systems are pretty
> poor. Too many different standards/types, quite old technology with no
> real pushes into new stuff.
That is true and companies to tend to fight over who should not be
fixing the lines.
>
> The UK is actually quite advance.
>
It is hard to believe, but you are right. I went to the Madley Satellite
station last year, as it is only a few miles from me. We had a look
around and it is really amazing what is happening in there.
My father worked on one of the huge old dishes, when they was building
them. they are now not used much as smaller dishes will do a better job.
| |
|
| In article <4321eff0$0$525$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, nntp-DOT-
dump@zen.co.uk says...
P.[vbcol=seagreen]
>=20
> Definately. In fact, I'd like to have no BT phone line, just an ADSL=20
> feed. The emergency landline would be our "free" cable line (no chance=20
> of ever getting rid of that 'cos we rely on its TV service). Then ATAs=20
> all round the house with DECT phones. Each person could have their own=20
> number.
>=20
> Hmmm, I think I'm beginning to find some useful uses for VoIP here...
>=20
I know I may sound like I do not like the idea of VOIP sometimes, but I=20
agree with you, there are some good uses for VOIP. But there are=20
problems, like ISP reliability, using it in an emergency, speech=20
quality, I know VOIP is pretty good, but they do have this delay=20
problem. cost is another thing, some people wpould find that they would=20
not save any money and this is the market VOIP is being aimed at. People=20
have got this idea that they will save money with VOIP. some well, but I=20
think most will not.
| |
| Paul Cupis 2005-09-09, 8:45 pm |
| Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 20:20:34 +0100, AD C <graphi47uk@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> It is time BT had a radical shake up dispensing with the members of
> staff that walk about all day doing nothing but carry a few sheets of
> paper to make themselves look busy for starters. Don't say they don't
> have these people all large companies have floor walkers ) .
Heh, so why should BT be any different?
| |
| Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2005-09-09, 8:45 pm |
| On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 00:02:17 +0100, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk>
wrote:
>Heh, so why should BT be any different?
Because BT is a service provider and not a manufacture of goods
it has been said many times some people have no choice but to have
BT and BT are continually looking for ways to exploit this fact to
their own advantage .
If ever a company needed to be taken back into public ownership
its BT , I have a friend who won't entertain a BT line in his home but
has thousands of pounds tied up in BT shares.
| |
| do.not.waste.your.time.emailing.me@this.addres 2005-09-10, 7:45 am |
| On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 23:49:02 +0100, AD C <graphi47uk@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk>
wrote:
[snip]
>
>It is hard to believe, but you are right. I went to the Madley Satellite=
=20
>station last year, as it is only a few miles from me. We had a look=20
>around and it is really amazing what is happening in there.=20
>
>My father worked on one of the huge old dishes, when they was building=20
>them. they are now not used much as smaller dishes will do a better job.
When did the laws of physics change? We should be told.
--=20
cerberus
| |
|
| In article <9bq3i1930vhuf0gfhjqiv2c96lgeo9mahl@4ax.com>,=20
Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> More like =A3 9 a year for many lines .
>=20
Don't forget it is not just the lines, but I think with the amount of=20
people that are paying this line rental, BT must be raking it in now.
Easy money, just like sky charging almost =A310 a month to record using=20
their Sky+ box.
| |
|
| Ian wrote:
>
> As a business you should be aware that to provide a level of service you
> will have to make capital purchases and ongoing charges such as phone calls,
> These are offset against you Tax and Vat. Therefore saving money is not
> realy that important.
>
For me, purchases must be anticipated to be eventually revenue/profit
generating. I don't make business purchases just because I can offset it
against a tax bill. That's bullshit economics to me.
>
>
> Then the questions now why AAH, Why not Asterisk its self. You will learn
> far more and have a better understanding of the workings, And be able to
> upgrade to later releases
>
I never thought of that. AAH just sounded like a quick get up and go. My
idea was to have VoIPBuster/Cheap and the "free" incoming lines all
centralised, so whatever I dial will automatically be routed over
whichever. Especially neat as ATAs have limits on how many lines can be
configured?
>
>
> Now to some domestic users thats a lot, but to business it is 1 line in use
> about 2 hours or so a day which is low. you cannot expect to make much
> savings on what you already have. What you can do is provide a better
> service though by putting out a unified CLI to people you call, Diverting
> incoming callers to you mobile seamlessly giving location independant
> working etc.
>
That sounds like a good idea. I've signed up to VoIPfone now and trying
to sign-up to Gradwell as well. Need to give it more of a go I think.
Maybe I can find useful uses that either make life easier or have
business benefits.
| |
| Phil Thompson 2005-09-11, 7:45 am |
| On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:04:21 +0100, "T." <nntp-DOT-dump@zen.co.uk>
wrote:
> I don't make business purchases just because I can offset it
>against a tax bill. That's bullshit economics to me.
as long as tax rates are below 100% its not worth spending money to
save tax :-)
Phil
--
Remember - Global Warming is only a weather forecast :-)
| |
|
| Phil Thompson wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:04:21 +0100, "T." <nntp-DOT-dump@zen.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> as long as tax rates are below 100% its not worth spending money to
> save tax :-)
>
Excellent - I find more and more people on the same wavelength as me.
That's very refreshing :-)
Cheers, T.
| |
| themgt 2005-09-11, 8:45 pm |
| dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
> By Broadband I presume you mean ADSL down a BT line ! where you to go
> over to TW broadband you could sling your BT line for starters which
> would be a saving of at least 10.40 a month.
Just wondering. If you're a Telewest customer and don't have a BT line
how is it that you're posting from a Freedom2surf account ?
|
|
|
|
|