| Author |
End to End IP QoS for voice, video and Xbox Live
|
|
|
| Does anyone know if any VoIP providers or ISPs are supporting
end-to-end (between my home and the VoIP service provider) QoS
handling? If not, is anyone aware if its on their offerings roadmap?
Presumably the VoIP service provider then have their own mechanisms for
handling QoS to the end destination in order to give a clean phone
connection.
Also, am planning on getting Xbox Live so will need to somehow get QoS
priorities working between data, voice, video and Halo 2 games sessions
on my soon to arrive Thomson Speedtouch 716wl gadget using newly
provisioned UK Online 2MBPS service...any advice would be appreciated.
Cheers
Hiro
| |
|
|
|
|
"Hiro" <hirodaryanani@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1139837258.308920.65540@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Does anyone know if any VoIP providers or ISPs are supporting
> end-to-end (between my home and the VoIP service provider) QoS
> handling? If not, is anyone aware if its on their offerings roadmap?
>
> Presumably the VoIP service provider then have their own mechanisms for
> handling QoS to the end destination in order to give a clean phone
> connection.
>
> Also, am planning on getting Xbox Live so will need to somehow get QoS
> priorities working between data, voice, video and Halo 2 games sessions
> on my soon to arrive Thomson Speedtouch 716wl gadget using newly
> provisioned UK Online 2MBPS service...any advice would be appreciated.
Yes there are suppliers who offer this, But not at a domestic rate. basicly
they offer a VPN.
Some domestic ISPs are now starting to introduce Network management:
This is what my isp is doing, And quality has improved - was only in the
evenings now its " Introduction of traffic prioritisation to ensure
important web, email, gaming and broadband phone call (VoIP) traffic gets
priority at all times".
Ian
| |
| Nick Ward 2006-02-14, 7:45 am |
| Hiro wrote:
> Does anyone know if any VoIP providers or ISPs are supporting
> end-to-end (between my home and the VoIP service provider) QoS
> handling? If not, is anyone aware if its on their offerings roadmap?
No, that's what the so-called 21st Century Networks are all about - IP
Telephony (with QoS) as opposed to Voice over IP (without QoS). It'll
be on all the major telco ISPs' roadmaps. BT is trialling something in
Cardiff, so if you're fortunate enough to live there then you may get
it sooner!
>
> Presumably the VoIP service provider then have their own mechanisms for
> handling QoS to the end destination in order to give a clean phone
> connection.
Yes, the packets are marked to indicate the priority with which the
network should handle them. Time-critical stuff (voice, video) gets a
high priority and non-time-critical stuff (data) gets a low priority.
What you're after is available today in Enterprise networks (IP
Telephony over the LAN) but is too costly to do over the current PSTN.
Nick
| |
|
| hmm... read article ....
seems like bureacrats trying to figure out how best to manage
technology they don't understand
prioritizing one traffic stream over another is inevitable and
desirable
it would allow differented products to be delivered over one single
broadband line (hopefully without having to pay two bills for line
rental and broadband service)
in any case, there is differentiated services already in the form of
contention ratios of 20:1 offered to business and 50:1 to residential
(approx numbers). i am in that wonderful space classified as SOHO so
could choose either. I've chosen price over QoS so have a residential
service
| |
|
| and who pray tell is your ISP?
| |
| Nick Ward 2006-02-14, 7:45 am |
| Hiro wrote:
> and who pray tell is your ISP?
Netservices - www.netservicesplc.com - they have an IP Telephony
service (as opposed to VoIP).
| |
|
| Thanks Nick
looks like netservicesplc is selling services to business customers as
you mention below and delivering end to end Qos traffic presumably via
VPNs as Ian has mentioned.
Ian
I was actually interested in your domestic line provider... is it
plusnet by any chance?
Believe 21cn is pegged for delivery in 2008 onwards...seems not bad if
they can deliver in 2 years but suspect it will get delayed
Cheers
Hiro
| |
| Peter Corlett 2006-02-14, 7:45 am |
| Hiro <hirodaryanani@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
> prioritizing one traffic stream over another is inevitable and
> desirable
The Internet2 guys have spent some time doing research into QoS and the like
to ensure timely delivery of multimedia content, and the net conclusion was
that it's cheaper in the long run to just provide sufficient bandwidth in
the first place.
Bandwidth gets cheaper faster than technologies designed to conserve it. For
example, few ISPs bother with transparent proxy caches any more as they're
expensive and unreliable and international bandwidth is dirt cheap.
--
PHB: I need the handover documents for these 6 items ASAP.
BOFH: I'll treat them as a priority.
PHB: Does that mean I'll get them today or tomorrow?
BOFH: Did I say what level of priority I was assigning them?
| |
|
|
"Nick Ward" <nick.ward@recordmycall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1139913309.956285.18750@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hiro wrote:
>
> Netservices - www.netservicesplc.com - they have an IP Telephony
> service (as opposed to VoIP).
>
No its not! or are you answering a different question ???
Ian
| |
|
|
"Nick Ward" <nick.ward@recordmycall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1139907337.961332.295800@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hiro wrote:
>
> No, that's what the so-called 21st Century Networks are all about - IP
> Telephony (with QoS) as opposed to Voice over IP (without QoS). It'll
> be on all the major telco ISPs' roadmaps. BT is trialling something in
> Cardiff, so if you're fortunate enough to live there then you may get
> it sooner!
>
>
> Yes, the packets are marked to indicate the priority with which the
> network should handle them. Time-critical stuff (voice, video) gets a
> high priority and non-time-critical stuff (data) gets a low priority.
>
> What you're after is available today in Enterprise networks (IP
> Telephony over the LAN) but is too costly to do over the current PSTN.
You have been able to get QOS With priority fo voice for at least the last 3
years with certain suppliers.
At the moment most if not all VPNS are avalible with QOS, But at a cost.
Now some normal ISPs are starting to do network managment, I have definately
seen an improvement since its introduction by my ISP.
Ian
| |
| Nick Ward 2006-02-14, 5:45 pm |
|
Ian wrote:
> "Nick Ward" <nick.ward@recordmycall.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1139913309.956285.18750@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> No its not! or are you answering a different question ???
>
> Ian
In answer to the question 'and who pray tell is your ISP', I can
confirm that the answer is Netservices (though I hope this is not what
you meant).
If the comment 'No its not!' refers to my statement that Netservices
has an IP Telephony service (as opposed to VoIP) then I beg to differ
as per:
http://www.voice4ip.com/our_network...r-class-network
But if you have first-hand experience and it doesn't offer the claimed
QoS then it would be interesting to know about.
I have no connection (as it were) with Netservices.
| |
| Nick Ward 2006-02-14, 5:45 pm |
|
Ian wrote:
> You have been able to get QOS With priority fo voice for at least the last 3
> years with certain suppliers.
When you write 'suppliers' do you mean voice service providers or
equipment vendors?
If you mean voice service providers, then who are they and are their
services available to domestic users as well as businesses?
| |
| Paul Cupis 2006-02-14, 5:45 pm |
| Nick Ward wrote:
> Netservices - www.netservicesplc.com - they have an IP Telephony
> service (as opposed to VoIP).
And what is the difference between "IP Telephony" and "VoIP", please?
| |
|
| Nick Ward wrote:
>
> Yes, the packets are marked to indicate the priority with which the
> network should handle them. Time-critical stuff (voice, video) gets a
> high priority and non-time-critical stuff (data) gets a low priority.
Sounds alright in theory, but how will this work in practice? Surely if it's
down to the EU to tag their packets priority-wise, everyone will just mark
all their own traffic as 'high priority' and we'll be back to square one?
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (gebssnfxl@ubgznvy.pbz)
21:30:56 up 20 days, 1:49, 2 users, load average: 0.06, 0.17, 0.28
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
| |
|
| Peter Corlett wrote:
> Bandwidth gets cheaper faster than technologies designed to conserve it.
> For example, few ISPs bother with transparent proxy caches any more as
> they're expensive and unreliable and international bandwidth is dirt
> cheap.
Not to mention customers always using transparent proxies as a stick to beat
their ISP with, ie any time Joe User can't connect to $SITE, ring ISP and
whinge about the 'transparent' proxy!
--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (gebssnfxl@ubgznvy.pbz)
21:43:50 up 20 days, 2:02, 2 users, load average: 0.00, 0.05, 0.14
This is my BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMSTICK
| |
| Peter M 2006-02-14, 5:45 pm |
| Nick Ward wrote:
> Ian wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> In answer to the question 'and who pray tell is your ISP', I can
> confirm that the answer is Netservices (though I hope this is
> not what you meant).
Except the question was for Ian, of course, as was obvious by the
thread, and references line. At a guess, I'd suspect Ian uses
Metronet, now owned by Plus.Net, BICBW :-) Peter M.
| |
| Nick Ward 2006-02-15, 2:45 am |
| Paul Cupis wrote:
> And what is the difference between "IP Telephony" and "VoIP", please?
"IP Telephony" is gaining currency as a description of a converged
network, including mobile, exploiting SIP features like presence
detection, follow me and seamless moves and changes within the VPN.
| |
|
|
"Nick Ward" <nick.ward@recordmycall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1139948016.822923.219620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ian wrote:
last 3[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> When you write 'suppliers' do you mean voice service providers or
> equipment vendors?
>
> If you mean voice service providers, then who are they and are their
> services available to domestic users as well as businesses?
>
Originaly neither, It was the ISPs. Now Visps have started to use the ISPs
VPNs with QOS to suppy Voip services over.
As to being avalible to domestic users, not realy. Cost being prime. im sure
it will be one day though .
| |
|
| X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Lines: 19
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com uk.telecom.voip:12809 uk.telecom.broadband:212461
"Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dstfjo$22po$1@custnews.inweb.co.uk...
> Nick Ward wrote:
>
> And what is the difference between "IP Telephony" and "VoIP", please?
Nothing. VoIP is a generic term for the transport of voice packets over the
IP. Netservices and few others are using different terms. IP Telephony is
VoIP.
Have a look at http://www.voice4ip.com/what_is_voip.php to see how the QOS
is done and why it wont be avalible to domestic users.
Ian
| |
| Paul Cupis 2006-02-15, 7:45 am |
| Nick Ward wrote:
> Paul Cupis wrote:
>
> "IP Telephony" is gaining currency as a description of a converged
> network, including mobile, exploiting SIP features like presence
> detection, follow me and seamless moves and changes within the VPN.
So they are the same thing then. Thanks for clarifying.
| |
|
| true.... thats why I imagine there will varying interconnect charges
between ISPs based on the qos of a given channel.... a channel being
one voice conversation and another channel being a video conversation
etc
end user charges in the current world are fixed with a set usage cap
included and extra data charged per GB.... wonder if this charging
model will continue to hold in the brave new world.....
| |
|
| actually i would interpret what Nick said as IP Telephony **uses** VoIP
technology but adding more telephony like functionality such as the
list Nick mentioned...in any case, remains to be seen whether the term
gains ground... would IP Telephony include Video over IP?
| |
| Nick Ward 2006-02-19, 8:15 am |
| Hiro wrote:
> actually i would interpret what Nick said as IP Telephony **uses** VoIP
> technology but adding more telephony like functionality such as the
> list Nick mentioned...in any case, remains to be seen whether the term
> gains ground... would IP Telephony include Video over IP?
Yes, that's exactly what I meant and yes it does include video. When I
was product managing a Softswitch we had all sorts of fun and games
trying to explain the difference between bog-standard VoIP and what we
were actually making, so IP Telephony became a useful handle. Signs
that the expression is gaining ground is that the likes of Avaya
(www.avaya.com) and Nortel (www.nortel.com) use the expression.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-02-19, 8:15 am |
|
"Ian" <spam"AT"bathfordhill.co.uk> wrote in message
news:11v5s6q87m63c98@corp.supernews.com
> "Paul Cupis" <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:dstfjo$22po$1@custnews.inweb.co.uk...
>
> Nothing. VoIP is a generic term for the transport of
> voice packets over the IP. Netservices and few others are
> using different terms. IP Telephony is VoIP.
>
> Have a look at http://www.voice4ip.com/what_is_voip.php
> to see how the QOS is done and why it wont be avalible to
> domestic users.
The charter for this group gives some accepted definitions:
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.telecom...uk.telecom.voip
Ivor
| |
| Paul Cupis 2006-02-19, 8:15 am |
| Hiro wrote:
> actually i would interpret what Nick said as IP Telephony **uses** VoIP
> technology but adding more telephony like functionality such as the
> list Nick mentioned...in any case, remains to be seen whether the term
> gains ground... would IP Telephony include Video over IP?
You have an interesting definition of "telephony".
| |
| Paul Cupis 2006-02-19, 8:15 am |
| Hiro wrote:
> true.... thats why I imagine there will varying interconnect charges
> between ISPs based on the qos of a given channel.... a channel being
> one voice conversation and another channel being a video conversation
> etc
Interconnect fees between ISPs? Oh, good, we can go backwards 20 years.
| |
| Peter Corlett 2006-02-19, 8:15 am |
| Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
> Interconnect fees between ISPs? Oh, good, we can go backwards 20 years.
And exactly how do you think it works now?
--
There may be some doubt as to who are the best people to have in charge of
children, but there can be no doubt that parents are the worst.
- George Bernard Shaw
| |
| Paul Cupis 2006-02-19, 8:15 am |
| Peter Corlett wrote:
> Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote:
> [...]
>
> And exactly how do you think it works now?
I know exactly how it works now. But we don't pay every ISP we peer with
for the privilege. We pay our transit providers and we pay IXs to allow
us to connect to them.
My reading of the post I replied to suggested that the poster wanted all
ISPs to pay/charge to peer whether it is direct/private peering or
peering at IXs, and that this would give them some kind of QoS on the
network of the ISP they pay.
| |
|
| I imagine transit providers and IXs would probably continue to be the
intermediaries but how they charge would have to change, wouldn't they?
it couldnt be by pure size of data pipe....
..... and yeah, elements of how interconnect charging from the old world
would continue on...simply because you will have different traffic
types (video, voice, custom QoS for bespoke apps, ....) with their
specific requirements in terms of network response and throughput
attempting to get over a pipe, which as large as it may or can be will
assumedly still be a constrained resource...all the way to when I hold
a point to point high def video call to my folks in india for 1p a
minute...
My imagination continues... there would be a competitive market for IXs
(and maybe is) and end-Service Providers would route their traffic
through different IXs depending on the best rates offered to them for
specific traffic types and destinations and specific time of day...
not sure what the alternatives could be but am open to all ideas...
| |
|
|
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:45ha96F6rhqsU1@individual.net...
>
>
> "Ian" <spam"AT"bathfordhill.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:11v5s6q87m63c98@corp.supernews.com
>
> The charter for this group gives some accepted definitions:
> http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.telecom...uk.telecom.voip
>
Yes I should know I wrote them...........
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-02-19, 8:16 am |
|
"Ian" <spam"AT"bathfordhill.co.uk> wrote in message
news:11vavbpn3q7qccf@corp.supernews.com
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:45ha96F6rhqsU1@individual.net...
[snip]
> Yes I should know I wrote them...........
So you did, I didn't recognise the name ;-)
Ivor
| |
|
| In message <1139913309.956285.18750@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Nick
Ward <nick.ward@recordmycall.co.uk> writes
>Hiro wrote:
>
>Netservices - www.netservicesplc.com - they have an IP Telephony
>service (as opposed to VoIP).
>
Yet another company using an 0870 number for contact details.
Probably making money from any customers who have to phone them.
http://www.saynoto0870.com/
--
DJ
| |
| Paul Cupis 2006-02-21, 7:45 am |
| DJ wrote:
> In message <1139913309.956285.18750@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Nick
> Ward <nick.ward@recordmycall.co.uk> writes
>
> Yet another company using an 0870 number for contact details.
> Probably making money from any customers who have to phone them.
And?
| |
|
| In message <dtf1oh$22qd$2@custnews.inweb.co.uk>, Paul Cupis
<paul@cupis.co.uk> writes
>DJ wrote:
>
>And?
Welcome to rip-off Britain.
Any company that uses only 0870 numbers as means of contacting them
are 'in my mind' out to make as much money as possible out of
unsuspecting customers, and will be avoided if possible.
If they can't be avoided, then I am very suspicious of any claims they
make.
They are trying to sell you something, but you have to pay over the odds
to talk to them.
Many friends that I talk to also have the same opinion.
If these company's cannot give a UK geographical number on their web
site, then they appear rip-off merchants to many folk.
--
DJ
| |
| Paul Cupis 2006-02-21, 5:45 pm |
| DJ wrote:
> In message <dtf1oh$22qd$2@custnews.inweb.co.uk>, Paul Cupis
> <paul@cupis.co.uk> writes
>
> Welcome to rip-off Britain.
> Any company that uses only 0870 numbers as means of contacting them
> are 'in my mind' out to make as much money as possible out of
> unsuspecting customers, and will be avoided if possible.
So you meant to post a thought-out, well-written email to Netservices
explaining your point of view and asking them to consider publishing a
geographic number, but your mail client accidentally posted a whine to
uk.telecom instead?
Which do you think would be most effective/productive?
> If they can't be avoided, then I am very suspicious of any claims they
> make.
Not sure what this is supposed to mean.
> They are trying to sell you something, but you have to pay over the odds
> to talk to them.
Sop don't buy from them - their loss, right?
> Many friends that I talk to also have the same opinion.
> If these company's cannot give a UK geographical number on their web
> site, then they appear rip-off merchants to many folk.
No comment.
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2006-02-21, 5:45 pm |
| On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:09:54 +0000, DJ <nospam@nospam.net.invalid>
wrote:
>If these company's cannot give a UK geographical number on their web
>site, then they appear rip-off merchants to many folk.
Although I do have some sympathy for this view, we publicise an 0845
number - for good reason. Four years ago, we moved premises and could
not take our phone number (different exchange area). Some customers
and a few friends had a struggle getting in contact.
Since then, we have made a point of giving primacy to the 0845 number
because if we have another move (I do hope not!) we can take /that/
number with us.
Nowadays, there is really no need for such things, because a VOIP
number is not fixed geographically, but I'm not 100% confident about
how long our VOIP number providers will stay in business and there is
no sign of number portability between VOIP providers at present.
So we advertise the 0845, and will give anyone who wants it a real
number. But we want to be sure they have the 0845 as well!
| |
| Paul Cupis 2006-02-21, 5:45 pm |
| hairydog@despammed.com wrote:
> Since then, we have made a point of giving primacy to the 0845 number
> because if we have another move (I do hope not!) we can take /that/
> number with us.
>
> Nowadays, there is really no need for such things, because a VOIP
> number is not fixed geographically, but I'm not 100% confident about
> how long our VOIP number providers will stay in business and there is
> no sign of number portability between VOIP providers at present.
>
> So we advertise the 0845, and will give anyone who wants it a real
> number. But we want to be sure they have the 0845 as well!
For future reference, there are non-VoIP companies offering geographic
numbers which can be forwarded on to your "real"/actual geographic
number, effectively giving you the same service you have on 0845 but
with a geographic number.
Of course, this is at a cost to you, and if you move out of you current
STD code, your number will still be in your old STD code.
| |
| Mark McIntyre 2006-02-22, 5:45 pm |
| On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:09:54 +0000, in uk.telecom.broadband , DJ
<nospam@nospam.net.invalid> wrote:
>Welcome to rip-off Britain.
Oh gawd, not another whingeing brit.
>They are trying to sell you something, but you have to pay over the odds
>to talk to them.
>Many friends that I talk to also have the same opinion.
Presumably you all sit around in the pub muttering into your larger
about it...
Mark McIntyre
--
| |
| M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2006-02-22, 5:45 pm |
| On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:20:23 GMT, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:09:54 +0000, in uk.telecom.broadband , DJ
><nospam@nospam.net.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>Oh gawd, not another whingeing brit.
Just because YOU have a bulging bank account it doesn't mean we all
have and if we all sat back and accept all that is thrown at us or
should I say TAKEN from us Britain will continue to be rip-off
Britain.
It sticks out a mile that Britain is rip-off Britain when you can buy
a pack of tobacco un Belgium for two quid and the same pack is costing
a few pence short of ten quid here .
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2006-02-22, 5:45 pm |
| On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:19:52 +0000, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk>
wrote:
>Of course, this is at a cost to you
That rules it out.
| |
| Peter Corlett 2006-02-22, 5:45 pm |
| Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
[...]
> Presumably you all sit around in the pub muttering into your larger about
> it...
Lager is so much more expensive than bitter, so somebody must be raking it
in by ripping off the punters[0]. Rip-off Britain strikes again!
*hides*
[0] True, as it so happens. Your money goes into advertising rather than
quality ingredients.
--
Och Aye. Twa pounds ten, and that's cutting me puir wee throatie. Would ye
want that haggis supersized?
-- Suresh Ramasubramanian channels McDibbler in the Monastery
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-02-22, 5:45 pm |
|
"Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:e8epv192smfna57kuqgv0cndcrf5mcjp4e@
4ax.com
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:09:54 +0000, in
> uk.telecom.broadband , DJ <nospam@nospam.net.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
> Oh gawd, not another whingeing brit.
Not "Brit", that's an Americanism. BritISH if you please.
>
> Presumably you all sit around in the pub muttering into
> your larger about it...
Larger what..? Another pint of real ale..? Don't mind if I do :-)
Ivor
| |
| Thomas Kenyon 2006-02-22, 5:45 pm |
| M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
> It sticks out a mile that Britain is rip-off Britain when you can buy
> a pack of tobacco un Belgium for two quid and the same pack is costing
> a few pence short of ten quid here .
Having recently spent some time in a Spanish hospital, I think every
extra penny we pay is worth it.
| |
| M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2006-02-22, 5:45 pm |
| On 22 Feb 2006 19:43:26 GMT, abuse@dopiaza.cabal.org.uk (Peter
Corlett) wrote:
>Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:
>[...]
>
>Lager is so much more expensive than bitter, so somebody must be raking it
>in by ripping off the punters[0]. Rip-off Britain strikes again!
About time the same song and dance was made about the sale of alcohol
in this country that is made about tobacco, hell fire no one has ever
killed anyone by smoking tobacco but plenty have been killed by stupid
idiots getting tanked up then jumping behind a wheel of a car .
| |
| M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2006-02-22, 5:45 pm |
| On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:17:44 GMT, Thomas Kenyon
<uktvoip@sanguinarius.co.uk> wrote:
>M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>
>
>Having recently spent some time in a Spanish hospital, I think every
>extra penny we pay is worth it.
We pay Thomas we pay I don't pay I go to Belgium for my tobacco and I
certainly do not go in pubs and clubs paying two pounds upwards for a
pint of colored water that tastes bloody awful , give me a pint of tea
anytime which reminds me must put the kettle on .
| |
| Bob Eager 2006-02-22, 5:45 pm |
| On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:43:35 UTC, M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
> We pay Thomas we pay I don't pay I go to Belgium for my tobacco and I
> certainly do not go in pubs and clubs paying two pounds upwards for a
> pint of colored water that tastes bloody awful , give me a pint of tea
> anytime which reminds me must put the kettle on .
I am surprised that a rabid nationalist such as you uses the American
spelling of 'coloured'.
--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]
| |
| Thomas Kenyon 2006-02-22, 5:45 pm |
| M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>
> We pay Thomas we pay I don't pay I go to Belgium for my tobacco and I
> certainly do not go in pubs and clubs paying two pounds upwards for a
> pint of colored water that tastes bloody awful , give me a pint of tea
> anytime which reminds me must put the kettle on .
You're right, taxes should be increased on tea to makeup for the loss in
revenue caused by people importing tobacco.
| |
| M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk 2006-02-22, 5:45 pm |
| On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:24:23 GMT, Thomas Kenyon
<uktvoip@sanguinarius.co.uk> wrote:
>M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>
>
>You're right, taxes should be increased on tea to makeup for the loss in
>revenue caused by people importing tobacco.
Which is what will happen if the government and the do gooders don't
stop their relentless hassling of smokers and they all give up the
revenue lost would have to be made up from somewhere . Lets raise the
tax on fuel by 200% and slap vat on food and clothing that should go
some way to covering the chandlers losses .
| |
| Thomas Kenyon 2006-02-22, 5:45 pm |
| M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:24:23 GMT, Thomas Kenyon
> <uktvoip@sanguinarius.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Which is what will happen if the government and the do gooders don't
> stop their relentless hassling of smokers and they all give up the
> revenue lost would have to be made up from somewhere . Lets raise the
> tax on fuel by 200%
Good idea, then maybe people would be more responsible with it.
> and slap vat on food and clothing that should go
> some way to covering the chandlers losses .
VAT is already on most food and all clothing other than childrens.
| |
| Mark McIntyre 2006-02-22, 8:45 pm |
| On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:29:47 GMT, in uk.telecom.broadband ,
M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>It sticks out a mile that Britain is rip-off Britain when you can buy
>a pack of tobacco un Belgium for two quid and the same pack is costing
>a few pence short of ten quid here .
Sure, so why not pop over to Belgium, buy some fags, and pop back? Oh,
I remember, it costs more than six quid for the ferry. Hm.
Still, if you think Britain is a ripoff and Belgium is so cheap, you
could always move there. Oh, by the way, you get paid less and beer
costs more, and etc etc.
Mark McIntyre
--
| |
| Mark McIntyre 2006-02-22, 8:45 pm |
| On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 20:38:53 GMT, in uk.telecom.broadband ,
M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>hell fire no one has ever killed anyone by smoking tobacco
I suspect someone could a report of the train driver who had a heart
attack at the wheel, or the bus driver who keeled over or etc.
>but plenty have been killed by stupid
>idiots getting tanked up then jumping behind a wheel of a car .
Fine. Lets ban booze. Is that what you're saying?
Youre a nutter. Its official.
Mark McIntyre
--
| |
|
| Thomas Kenyon wrote:
> M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
> < big snip>
> VAT is already on most food
No it's not. Do you just eat out all the time, graze on snacks?
Real food is still free of direct VAT.
| |
| Peter Corlett 2006-02-23, 5:45 pm |
| <M.Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> abuse@dopiaza.cabal.org.uk (Peter Corlett) wrote:
> About time the same song and dance [...]
Can you feel the hook in your mouth?
--
Euphemisms are unpleasant truths wearing diplomatic cologne.
- Quentin Crisp
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-02-23, 5:45 pm |
|
"Mark McIntyre" <markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:reupv1tqpn4jpp0q7f2qupivkle3uvq0fe@
4ax.com
> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:44:17 -0000, in
> uk.telecom.broadband , "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> I'm sorry, I forgot that the Welsh get their sarcasm
> detectors removed at birth :-)
Oh I knew it was sarcasm, I just believe in a time and a place, this isn't
it.
FYI I'm a Londoner, blame my name on my parents.
Ivor
|
|
|
|