|
Home > Archive > Voice Over IP in UK > September 2005 > mobile phones (was Re: Well this will be an interesting discussion)
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 |
mobile phones (was Re: Well this will be an interesting discussion)
|
|
|
| Ad C wrote:
....
> Many people me included see some things as tools. My computer is a tool,
> ok it is a tool that can do lots of things, it allows me to write
> letters, it allows me to play game, I can even talk and contact people
> with it. That also make the internet a tool. It allows me to find
> information, chat to people and even listen to music.
>
> A phone is also a tool, it have only one pourpose in life and that is to
> allow you to talk to people.
You seem to be making a distinction between phones and computers. Nowadays,
phones are computers, and you can make a phone call on a computer. In fact,
your computer can even be an Uber-phone, ie a phone exchange you have
complete control over [1].
> Now most people would not call a phone a fun thing.
Perhaps not in your opinion, but mobile telcos and handset manufacturers
seem to have built a profitable business model around just such an
idea/marketing strategy, as oppose to a need. How many people who own
mobile phones actually *need* to be in contact wherever they are? 10%? 20%?
How many people are ever more than 10 minutes away from a landline of some
description? Of course there will always be corner cases, but in my
opinion, very few people do. I stopped using a mobile phone when Work
stopped paying for it six months ago, and I haven't dropped down dead. Yet.
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (gebssnfxl@ubgznvy.pbz)
20:26:31 up 2 days, 7:50, 2 users, load average: 0.03, 0.05, 0.10
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
[1] /me imagines running a port of Asterisk on a Sony-Ericsson P800 phone.
Now how's that for a paradox...
| |
|
| In article <2165391.fGscatQpmG@ale.cx>, look@my.sig says...
> You seem to be making a distinction between phones and computers. Nowadays,
> phones are computers, and you can make a phone call on a computer. In fact,
That depends. The wired phone I got connected just in case I lose
elctric is nothing like a computer, it is just an bog standard one piece
phone. I doubt you could 3even call the cordless phones I got a
computer, after all, I doubt very much if they got a processor in them.
> your computer can even be an Uber-phone, ie a phone exchange you have
> complete control over [1].
Maybe, but it still do not make it a phone, unless I want it to be one.
>
>
> Perhaps not in your opinion, but mobile telcos and handset manufacturers
> seem to have built a profitable business model around just such an
> idea/marketing strategy, as oppose to a need. How many people who own
That is because people seems to have no sense and buy anything that they
are told to.
> mobile phones actually *need* to be in contact wherever they are? 10%? 20%?
No idea, as I have said before, my mobile phone is at home 80% of te
time.
> How many people are ever more than 10 minutes away from a landline of some
> description? Of course there will always be corner cases, but in my
with les phone boxes, it is getting difficult to find a land line and
with BT high prices on their call boxes, you can understand why people
have got mobile phones.
> opinion, very few people do. I stopped using a mobile phone when Work
> stopped paying for it six months ago, and I haven't dropped down dead. Yet.
>
The only reason I got another mobile phone is because my mother is not
well and when I am out of house apart from work, I can still be
contacted if my parents need me for anything or if anything happens with
my mother. When I am at work, then I can be called there.
| |
| Phil Thompson 2005-09-29, 8:45 pm |
| On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 00:20:33 +0100, Ad C <graphi47uk@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk>
wrote:
>I doubt very much if they got a processor in them.
if its DECT there'll be something to do the Digitising.
I'd have to ask Bill Clinton if it counts as a processor.
Phil
--
Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster http://www.tglsoft.de/
No more cable clowns :-))
Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.
| |
|
| In article <t1uoj1ltja8dk5bejjsua9c7b85rj5pvsd@4ax.com>,
phil.thompson@spamcop.net says...
> if its DECT there'll be something to do the Digitising.
II suppose there would be, but it would not be much
I know one thing, I am not going to take one apart to find out. I am
having enough problems with one as it is.
>
> I'd have to ask Bill Clinton if it counts as a processor.
>
er? I have lost you there.
| |
| Phil Thompson 2005-09-30, 7:45 am |
| On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:09:03 +0100, Ad C <graphi47uk@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk>
wrote:
>er? I have lost you there.
I was anticipating a "the analogue to digital convertor is not a
processor" in the style of Clinton's "that depends on what your
definition of is is"
Phil
--
Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster http://www.tglsoft.de/
No more cable clowns :-))
Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.
| |
|
| In article <estpj15adtm1fi4t6golf7nhkp1cnloqff@4ax.com>,
phil.thompson@spamcop.net says...
> I was anticipating a "the analogue to digital convertor is not a
> processor" in the style of Clinton's "that depends on what your
> definition of is is"
>
Oh yes, I should have realised, it have a been another long and tiring
week and it is not over yet.
|
|
|
|
|