David W.E. Roberts wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just contemplating getting two VOIP routers (one for home and one for
> 'live away' location).
>
> I could then have free voice calls between two houses (ignoring costs of
> Broadband links which I would have regardless).
>
> However I am likely to pay about £100 more for each router than for a
> non-VOIP router.
>
> Seems to me it could take quite a long time to get this money back
> compared to the costs of fixed or mobile telephony on a reasonably good
> deal.
>
> What does the team think?
>
> Regards
>
> Dave R
You can get a Linksys PAP2 for £46 delivered, and get a router for
£30ish delivered. This would cut setup cost a bit i think, and it
depends on how many calls you make to how much you think you could save.
It also depends on if it would be helpful to have a second 'line' at the
properties.. If not it would probably be easier and cheaper to use
something like 1899.com, 3p per call
David W.E. Roberts wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just contemplating getting two VOIP routers (one for home and one for
> 'live away' location).
>
> I could then have free voice calls between two houses (ignoring costs of
> Broadband links which I would have regardless).
>
> However I am likely to pay about £100 more for each router than for a
> non-VOIP router.
>
> Seems to me it could take quite a long time to get this money back
> compared to the costs of fixed or mobile telephony on a reasonably good
> deal.
>
> What does the team think?
>
> Regards
>
> Dave R
If you have your broadband connection why not just use a softphone then
you wont have any extra costs
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:24:32 +0100, "David W.E. Roberts"
<nospam@talk21.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>just contemplating getting two VOIP routers (one for home and one for
>'live away' location).
>
>I could then have free voice calls between two houses (ignoring costs of
>Broadband links which I would have regardless).
>
>However I am likely to pay about £100 more for each router than for a
>non-VOIP router.
>
>Seems to me it could take quite a long time to get this money back
>compared to the costs of fixed or mobile telephony on a reasonably good
>deal.
>
>What does the team think?
It depends on where the two houses are. In different parts of town,
different parts of the country, or different parts of the world? If
they're just a local call away from each other then I doubt you would
ever justify it on call cost savings alone.
"David W.E. Roberts" <nospam@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.08.16.12.24.30.992000@talk21.com
> Hi,
>
> just contemplating getting two VOIP routers (one for home
> and one for 'live away' location).
>
> I could then have free voice calls between two houses
> (ignoring costs of Broadband links which I would have
> regardless).
>
> However I am likely to pay about £100 more for each
> router than for a non-VOIP router.
>
> Seems to me it could take quite a long time to get this
> money back compared to the costs of fixed or mobile
> telephony on a reasonably good deal.
>
> What does the team think?
>
> Regards
>
> Dave R
Personally I didn't get into VoIP for cost savings. In actual fact I make
relatively few calls but I am interested in the technology involved so I
have spent quite a bit of money which I doubt I will get back in cost
savings anytime soon.
Having said that, as others have said it all depends on the amount of
traffic you will generate between the two locations. If you're on the
phone for hours at a time or running a business, you'll see a return a lot
faster than if you just make the odd call now and again.
If you already have routers in place at each location, then a simple ATA
will suffice. My personal favourite is the Sipura 2000 but YMMV as they
say.
In article <3mebgeF158rjqU1@individual.net>, ivor@despammed.invalid
says...
>
> Personally I didn't get into VoIP for cost savings. In actual fact I make
> relatively few calls but I am interested in the technology involved so I
> have spent quite a bit of money which I doubt I will get back in cost
> savings anytime soon.
I buy things that are going to do something either cheaper than what I
already got or better than something I have already got.
I got myself a DVD recorder, because it is better than VHS, it is not
going to save me any money, but the quality is better and the disks do
not take so much room up.
My telephone makes calls and receive calls, which is all people need
from a telephone, I suppose that is one of the reasons I will not update
my mobile phone. I can recieve calls and make calls and at the end of
the day that is what a mobile phone is suppose to be for.
I too am interested in technology, but I will not buy something if it do
not do a job better.
>
> Having said that, as others have said it all depends on the amount of
> traffic you will generate between the two locations. If you're on the
> phone for hours at a time or running a business, you'll see a return a lot
> faster than if you just make the odd call now and again.
>
> If you already have routers in place at each location, then a simple ATA
> will suffice. My personal favourite is the Sipura 2000 but YMMV as they
> say.
But is it going to work as it should if the router have not got QOS?
"Ad C" <graphi47uk@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d6c3bff771ac0ee989832@news.metronet.co.u k
> In article <3mebgeF158rjqU1@individual.net>,
> ivor@despammed.invalid says...
> >
> > Personally I didn't get into VoIP for cost savings. In
> > actual fact I make relatively few calls but I am
> > interested in the technology involved so I have spent
> > quite a bit of money which I doubt I will get back in
> > cost savings anytime soon.
>
> I buy things that are going to do something either
> cheaper than what I already got or better than something
> I have already got.
Well there we differ, I often do this, but I also buy things I am
interested in. As well as telephone systems I am also interested in
amateur radio, now I am never going to make money or save money with that,
but it is an interesting mode of communication.
> I got myself a DVD recorder, because it is better than
> VHS, it is not going to save me any money, but the
> quality is better and the disks do not take so much room
> up.
And I bought a recorder with a hard disk drive for exactly the same
reasons.
> My telephone makes calls and receive calls, which is all
> people need from a telephone, I suppose that is one of
> the reasons I will not update my mobile phone. I can
> recieve calls and make calls and at the end of the day
> that is what a mobile phone is suppose to be for.
Me too. I have three Nokia 6310i's as there hasn't been anything better
for my usage patterns and style.
> I too am interested in technology, but I will not buy
> something if it do not do a job better.
A reasonable point of view, but for myself I am genuinely interested in
*how* it works, not whether it is better or not, although it is certainly
as good for the most part. Yes there are problems now and then but that's
what developing new technology is all about.
> > If you already have routers in place at each location,
> > then a simple ATA will suffice. My personal favourite
> > is the Sipura 2000 but YMMV as they say.
>
> But is it going to work as it should if the router have
> not got QOS?
If the connection isn't hammered with heavy downloads all the time then it
should be ok for the most part.
In article <3metliF16i434U1@individual.net>, ivor@despammed.invalid
says...
>
> Well there we differ, I often do this, but I also buy things I am
> interested in. As well as telephone systems I am also interested in
> amateur radio, now I am never going to make money or save money with that,
> but it is an interesting mode of communication.
But that is a different thing, I was looking at Radio Ham once, but I
got so many things to do, i doubt I would get the time to use it. At 40
years of age, I think it is a bit late to think of radio Ham. I used the
CB for a few years, yes, I also used the illegal part, sideband, and AM.
but it all went to pot when it became legal.
>
> And I bought a recorder with a hard disk drive for exactly the same
> reasons.
Yep, this one have a hard disk, a pioneer, nice bit of kit. I also got a
Thomson DHd4000 Freeview PVR,
>
> Me too. I have three Nokia 6310i's as there hasn't been anything better
> for my usage patterns and style.
I liked the 3310, it may have been a bit big in size, but it worked
well, it was simple to use and at least the screen was easy to see in
bright sunlight, which is more than I can say for most now.
I got a Sendo Fliphone, it is ok, but it will need replacing in the next
12 months, but trying to get a phone, without all the crap, like
Cameras, internet, polyphonic ringtones is getting difficult.
My parents have got the Nokia now.
>
> A reasonable point of view, but for myself I am genuinely interested in
> *how* it works, not whether it is better or not, although it is certainly
> as good for the most part. Yes there are problems now and then but that's
> what developing new technology is all about.
I am interested in how it works, and I can get the idea most of the
time, by looking on the internet. Technology is ok, but I think
sometimes, we get to much into it and if it goes wrong, then we have
problems. Like today, I wanted to get some money out of the cash
machine, which is outside where I work. I went to put my card in and
there on the screen, was a windows desktop, with a command prompt box,
with Mcafee virus checker running.
I normally wait for a couple of years untill most of tebugs are sorted
out. I admit, I did not with the DVD recorder and I lost big time on my
first one.
>
> > But is it going to work as it should if the router have
> > not got QOS?
>
> If the connection isn't hammered with heavy downloads all the time then it
> should be ok for the most part.
>
Fine if you only got one computer connected to the system, not sure what
it would be like if you got more than one, which is being used at the
same time.
The Zoom X5V VoIP modem / router isn't too expensive ~£90 (so long that you
don't need to add wifi).
I have no personal experience with it, but can vouch for Draytek Vigor
2600VG and Zyxel 2602HWL.
Regards,
Martin
"Ad C" <graphi47uk@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d6c6968b498a7f989839@news.metronet.co.uk
> In article <3metliF16i434U1@individual.net>,
> ivor@despammed.invalid says...
> >
> > Well there we differ, I often do this, but I also buy
> > things I am interested in. As well as telephone systems
> > I am also interested in amateur radio, now I am never
> > going to make money or save money with that, but it is
> > an interesting mode of communication.
>
> But that is a different thing, I was looking at Radio Ham
> once, but I got so many things to do, i doubt I would get
> the time to use it. At 40 years of age, I think it is a
> bit late to think of radio Ham. I used the CB for a few
> years, yes, I also used the illegal part, sideband, and
> AM. but it all went to pot when it became legal.
I was never really into CB. I did dabble, but found it too limiting, which
is why I went for the amateur licence. Regarding age, you're a
youngster..! My local club runs exam classes regularly, many people of all
ages pass, including pensioners. Give it a try, you may be pleasantly
surprised.
> > And I bought a recorder with a hard disk drive for
> > exactly the same reasons.
>
> Yep, this one have a hard disk, a pioneer, nice bit of
> kit. I also got a Thomson DHd4000 Freeview PVR,
Sony RDR-HX900 this end (160GB drive) plus an RDR-GX3 DVD-only machine.
> > Me too. I have three Nokia 6310i's as there hasn't been
> > anything better for my usage patterns and style.
>
> I liked the 3310, it may have been a bit big in size, but
> it worked well, it was simple to use and at least the
> screen was easy to see in bright sunlight, which is more
> than I can say for most now.
The 6310i is the best of the mono screen phones IMHO. I have a 7250i I got
as a free upgrade but I never use it. Once the backlight goes off you
can't see a thing.
> I normally wait for a couple of years untill most of
> tebugs are sorted out. I admit, I did not with the DVD
> recorder and I lost big time on my first one.
Same here, I had one of the early Philips machines, *big* mistake.
> > If the connection isn't hammered with heavy downloads
> > all the time then it should be ok for the most part.
> >
>
> Fine if you only got one computer connected to the
> system, not sure what it would be like if you got more
> than one, which is being used at the same time.
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:3mh893F16odarU1@individual.net...
>
>
> <Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:0dp6g1tqku51mt07a99hjf92dccajv7am0@4ax.com
>
> [snip]
>
>> services working has they should work
>> and do not expect their customers to attend collage and
>> study the German language .
>
> I would respectfully suggest that you master the English language first
> before you complain about others.
>
> Ivor
>
>
you see their yew gow ivur ,lording it up and telling peeple how you think
they shud akt, please tell us wat ur interezt in zipgayte is
<Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0ht6g1lt1kd1t7qvldr7tao90gump9umt9@4ax.com
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:01:14 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> > I was never really into CB. I did dabble, but found it
> > too limiting, which is why I went for the amateur
> > licence. Regarding age, you're a youngster..! My local
> > club runs exam classes regularly, many people of all
> > ages pass, including pensioners. Give it a try, you may
> > be pleasantly surprised.
> I have and it was total bollocks that is why the radio's
> are in the cupboard all that bullshit just to talk to
> someone maybe a few hundred miles away much cheaper and
> easier these days to pick up the phone and dial .
As usual, you're totally missing the point. Amateur Radio is as much about
the means of communication as the communication itself. It is a
tremendously satisfying feeling to know you have communicated over a long
distance entirely by your own efforts and without the aid of any other
person or network.
Amateur Radio is also (apart from CB) the only method of communications
where you can call "blind" - i.e. put out a call and not know who (if
anyone) you're going to get. I've made many good friends that way, none of
whom behave as a lot of people do on here.
<Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:reu6g11r2il6q8b46bbmuceibid4sv50ag@4ax.com
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:48:59 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> > As usual, you're totally missing the point. Amateur
> > Radio is as much about the means of communication as
> > the communication itself. It is a tremendously
> > satisfying feeling to know you have communicated over a
> > long distance entirely by your own efforts and without
> > the aid of any other person or network.
> Ivor if at the teaching sessions you spoke of taught how
> to use a radio properly and not how to BUILD transceivers
> and erect Aerials and know what length they should be and
> all that nonsense and then test you on the knowledge
> gained there would be more sense in it .
> I was in touch with quite a few radio hams a few years
> ago and most agreed with me that all the engineering
> stuff should be removed from the test papers completely
> but all the old fuddyduddys that comprise the Amateur
> Radio society of Great Britain don't agree .
The course for the new Foundation licence does indeed teach procedures. As
for your other comments, the purpose of the technical requirements are to
ensure that you know precisely *how* radio works. This is for a very good
reason. The amateur licence grants a very exclusive privilege, that of
being *allowed* to build and use non-type-approved equipment. That carries
with it the responsibility not to cause interference with other services.
Hence the need to know how not to cause problems and how to solve them if
they do occur.
Anyone can be an equipment operator. Far fewer can be a true radio
amateur.
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:3mhd4sF16nbknU1@individual.net...
>
>
> <Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:reu6g11r2il6q8b46bbmuceibid4sv50ag@4ax.com
>> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:48:59 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
>> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > As usual, you're totally missing the point. Amateur
>> > Radio is as much about the means of communication as
>> > the communication itself. It is a tremendously
>> > satisfying feeling to know you have communicated over a
>> > long distance entirely by your own efforts and without
>> > the aid of any other person or network.
>
>> Ivor if at the teaching sessions you spoke of taught how
>> to use a radio properly and not how to BUILD transceivers
>> and erect Aerials and know what length they should be and
>> all that nonsense and then test you on the knowledge
>> gained there would be more sense in it .
>> I was in touch with quite a few radio hams a few years
>> ago and most agreed with me that all the engineering
>> stuff should be removed from the test papers completely
>> but all the old fuddyduddys that comprise the Amateur
>> Radio society of Great Britain don't agree .
>
> The course for the new Foundation licence does indeed teach procedures. As
> for your other comments, the purpose of the technical requirements are to
> ensure that you know precisely *how* radio works. This is for a very good
> reason. The amateur licence grants a very exclusive privilege, that of
> being *allowed* to build and use non-type-approved equipment. That carries
> with it the responsibility not to cause interference with other services.
> Hence the need to know how not to cause problems and how to solve them if
> they do occur.
>
> Anyone can be an equipment operator. Far fewer can be a true radio
> amateur.
>
> Ivor
>
>
you pull other people to bits about disussing other subjects apart from voip
on here yet you can get away with it, wheres the justice
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:48:59 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>Amateur Radio is also (apart from CB) the only method of communications
>where you can call "blind" - i.e. put out a call and not know who (if
>anyone) you're going to get. I've made many good friends that way, none of
>whom behave as a lot of people do on here.
Another way would be to dial numbers at random on a telephone. ;-)
"Chris Blunt" <chris_blunt@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:qfj8g11qj5hdcdo53c2hm1jp46jugitbhd@4ax.com
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:48:59 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Amateur Radio is also (apart from CB) the only method
> > of communications where you can call "blind" - i.e. put
> > out a call and not know who (if anyone) you're going to
> > get. I've made many good friends that way, none of whom
> > behave as a lot of people do on here.
>
> Another way would be to dial numbers at random on a
> telephone. ;-)
>
> Chris
Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> "Chris Blunt" <chris_blunt@despammed.com> wrote:
[...]
>> Another way would be to dial numbers at random on a telephone. ;-)
> Then they call the police though :-( <g>
To daringly drag this back on topic, I gather that Skype encourages
randomly calling strangers for a chat. It's an opt-in thing though.
--
I recommend limiting one's involvement in other people's lives to a pleasantly
scant minimum.
- Quentin Crisp
<abuse@dopiaza.cabal.org.uk> wrote in message
news:430470be$0$25903$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk
> Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> > "Chris Blunt" <chris_blunt@despammed.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > > Another way would be to dial numbers at random on a
> > > telephone. ;-)
> > Then they call the police though :-( <g>
>
> To daringly drag this back on topic, I gather that Skype
> encourages randomly calling strangers for a chat. It's an
> opt-in thing though.
Yes, Skype Me, I've seen it. I still prefer radio though :-)
<Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7d09g1l8i3sadh1hafdb523m9bttqjedmn@4ax.com
> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:47:05 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Then they call the police though :-(
> Give over Ivor anyone can dial a wrong number ! .
Yes but when you try and chat up the girl that answered ;-))
Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
[...]
> Yes, Skype Me, I've seen it. I still prefer radio though :-)
An interesting idea, but I find that neither John Humphrys nor Sarah
Montague reply when I speak to the radio. Are they just rude, or is my
radio faulty?
--
PGP key ID E85DC776 - finger abuse@mooli.org.uk for full key
/:.*posting.google.com.*/HX-Trace:+j
"Peter" <abuse@dopiaza.cabal.org.uk> wrote in message
news:4304e004$0$306$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk
> Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
> [...]
> > Yes, Skype Me, I've seen it. I still prefer radio
> > though :-)
>
> An interesting idea, but I find that neither John
> Humphrys nor Sarah Montague reply when I speak to the
> radio. Are they just rude, or is my radio faulty?
You don't have a licence to transmit on Band II, that's why..!
In article <lrp6g1pvd2ok8dqcl3vm0jkomafub6306j@4ax.com>, Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk says...
>
> Ham and CB radio's went out with the ark along with the large ariel's
> stuck out on the garden or hanging from the chimney stack reaching for
> the moon and all the users these days are old fuddyduddys.
> I have a ICOM transmitter/receiver and a handheld that got put in the
> cupboard about twenty years ago plus a CB radio .
>
CB radio is still going, it is not so busy on itnow, I still got my
aerial stuck on ths die of the shed and I may connect it up again, to
see who is still around. CB radio is a cheap way to talk to people, ok
so it is not private, you can also meet people on there. I got a few
friends off the CB, that I still see now.
Ham radio is another thing, it is a very interesting hobby, you can talk
to people all other the world, I know you can do that by using MSN,
paltalk and other software of that type, but it is not the same.
It may be old to you, but there are still millions of people around the
world still using Ham radio.
In article <3mh8qsF16ho1qU1@individual.net>, ivor@despammed.invalid
says...
In article <3mh8qsF16ho1qU1@individual.net>, ivor@despammed.invalid
says...
> >
> I was never really into CB. I did dabble, but found it too limiting, which
You are right, it is limited, but then it was only made for local
communication. I did chat to some people abroad when the old skip was
right, but most of the time it was only about 30 miles away. I only had
a small aerial as my pareants would not allow me to put an illegal one
up :-(. Now it is legal to use sigmas and things like that.
> is why I went for the amateur licence. Regarding age, you're a
My nephew went for it, passed the exam and never bothered after,
> youngster..! My local club runs exam classes regularly, many people of all
> ages pass, including pensioners. Give it a try, you may be pleasantly
> surprised.
It is just finding the time that is the problem.
> >
> > Yep, this one have a hard disk, a pioneer, nice bit of
> > kit. I also got a Thomson DHd4000 Freeview PVR,
>
> Sony RDR-HX900 this end (160GB drive) plus an RDR-GX3 DVD-only machine.
I was looking at a sony or a Pansonic, but I am not fond of Sony
products.
> The 6310i is the best of the mono screen phones IMHO. I have a 7250i I got
> as a free upgrade but I never use it. Once the backlight goes off you
> can't see a thing.
That is not good, I will keep the Sendo for a couple more years I think,
I can not understand why people change the things so much. I could not
be bothered.
> Same here, I had one of the early Philips machines, *big* mistake.
Goodmans, £250 and it was a load of rubbish, it is up here now, and is
used as a DVd player only.
> > Fine if you only got one computer connected to the
> > system, not sure what it would be like if you got more
> > than one, which is being used at the same time.
>
> That's where QoS comes in.
>
But then we are back to the problem that most routers do not have QOS. I
have looked on the support site for my router which is a Safecom and
there is something about QOS may be added to the next firmware upgrade.
This router cost me £70 last year, so I am not ready to buy another one
for a couple more years. It is a good router and I got a small printer
on it downstairs, which is useful if I want to print off something ,
downstairs, before I go out. It is down there wating for me.
In article <0ht6g1lt1kd1t7qvldr7tao90gump9umt9@4ax.com>, Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk says...
>
> I have and it was total bollocks that is why the radio's are in the
> cupboard all that bullshit just to talk to someone maybe a few hundred
> miles away much cheaper and easier these days to pick up the phone and
> dial .
>
>
I think you are total bollocks.
Normally you phone people you know, A CB is not about that, A CB is a
way for people to meet, make new friend and house bond people can also
make new friends. Trying doing that with your VOIP.
Oh BTY, your so call VOIP provider, should sort out their custamer
service. a mate of mine sent an email a week ago to them, asking about
some information, since he runs a business and VOIP may be the way to
go. He have heard nothing apart from a Automated email.
At least Slipgate did reply.
In article <reu6g11r2il6q8b46bbmuceibid4sv50ag@4ax.com>, Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk says...
>
..
> Ivor if at the teaching sessions you spoke of taught how to use a
> radio properly and not how to BUILD transceivers and erect Aerials
> and know what length they should be and all that nonsense and then
> test you on the knowledge gained there would be more sense in it .
> I was in touch with quite a few radio hams a few years ago and most
> agreed with me that all the engineering stuff should be removed from
> the test papers completely but all the old fuddyduddys that comprise
> the Amateur Radio society of Great Britain don't agree .
>
>
It is nice to learn, I do know a little bit about it, as I have read
books and also being on the Cd I have made my own aerials now and again,
so I know about the different wave lengths. There is now an easier test,
but you are limited to the frequencies you use.
In article <qfj8g11qj5hdcdo53c2hm1jp46jugitbhd@4ax.com>, chris_blunt@despammed.com says...
>
> Another way would be to dial numbers at random on a telephone. ;-)
>
Anyone did that to me and I would tell them where to go, since I am ex-
directory.
Talking of which, is there such a thing as ex-directory with VOIP, do
the numbers get published in the nommal telephone directory or are the
numbers easy to get?
I know with mobile phones, there is some sort of listing, but my phone
is not registered anyway, so my number can not really be listed.
In article <430470be$0$25903$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, abuse@dopiaza.cabal.org.uk says...
>
> To daringly drag this back on topic, I gather that Skype encourages
> randomly calling strangers for a chat. It's an opt-in thing though.
>
>
That is a different thing, that is like MSN messenger and all the other
messenging software. I know SKYP is VOIP, but it is not the same as
VOnage or Sligate.
In article <0dp6g1tqku51mt07a99hjf92dccajv7am0@4ax.com>, Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:38:24 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> >Yes there are problems now and then but that's
> >what developing new technology is all about.
> Only with ONE particular provider most VOIP providers have got passed
> the beta stage and are now providing excellent service to all their
> customers with ALL their services working has they should work
> and do not expect their customers to attend collage and study the
> German language .
>
It is a pity thye customer service is not better, typical Amercans, I
suppose.
How long to get your money back? 
Linear Mode
