"Phil Thompson" <phil.thompson@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:iie9f1lljrbga7vdcqqllphivjonmn855l@4ax.com...
> On 6 Aug 2005 05:22:34 -0700, "bence_fab" <orsolyka@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Honestly, maybe I confused you with another Ivor or I misunderstood
> >this statement of yours.
>
> Ivor posts to Usenet newsgroups by whatever means, Google Groups
> archives Usenet newsgroups and gives access to them, you use Google
> Groups.
>
> So Ivor is saying he doesn't use Google groups, but his output appears
> on said service, which is where you see it.
>
> So you're both right - he rarely uses it and you see his stuff on it
> all the time.
It also shows his limited knowledge of how Usenet works. Which explains his
continued posting of replys to spam, instead of ignoring them
I'm a satisified Sipgate user... not perfect but what can you expect for a
few quid a month. I dial the number and mostly my calls get connected and
I'm happy. I definitely don't work for them.
I haven't bothered with their free voicemail but if I did I would judge it
on whether I get to hear my messages not the sexiness level of the voice
prompts.
Although having said that Sipgate are missing a trick since there are plenty
of free automatic voice generators which I've used successfully for budget
IVR for example http://www.research.att.com/projects/tts/demo.html
Horses for courses, if you want high-availability and five-nines SLA then
keep paying through both nostrils to your traditional POTS provider. Me I
just want to take a big axe to my phone bill.
bence_fab wrote:
> Thomas Rankin wrote:
>> bence_fab wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I don't usually post anything to these groups and usually prefer
>>> just reading them but I have to say that in my opinion you are
>>> either a very ignorant customer or simply a Sipgate employee. I
>>> have seen your posts all over the place defending or arbitrarily
>>> praising Sipgate.
>>>
>> He could have just genuinely not had a problem with them over the
>> twelve months.
>
> If he hasn't had a problem in the last 12 months, great. But the
> level of support he has shown in other posts and especially here
> with regard to recording the announcements is just too much.
I can only advise what I have been informed.
> As an example, if someone's mobile provider constantly delivered bad
> service because signal in their area was low I'd advise them to seek
> another not assure them that they'll get it sorted out soon even
> though I was getting good service from that provider in my area.
But I don't get constantly bad service. I can only advise other people on
the service I *do* get. If I am getting good service do you expect me to
say I'm not just because *you're* not..? Don't be silly.
>
>>>
>> Which service, the voicemail? Do you prefer closed beta testing?
>>
> Beta testing is one thing, but being unprepared is another.
>
>> This is usenet, there are always people that are insitant that the
>> product they use is the best, in the same way that Dexter thinks
>> that Vonage is fantastic. (I'm not arguing that they are or are
>> not).
>>
>> Maybe he finds their service useable. I do.
>
> Fair enough, I just find the frequency of his support too strange.
I find a lot of things strange, a large percentage of people on this group
for a start ;-)
> In this particular case I just can't understand how a customer can
> defend the way this voicemail service has been delivered.
I'm not defending it. I am merely explaining it. There is a difference.
> It's still my opinion that said person is a Sipgate employee.
I am not. For a start I am in the UK and Sipgate does not as yet have a
physical UK presence. I can't prove it to you, so if you don't want to
believe me then that's up to you.
> Recommending Sipgate and extolling their virtues is one thing. But
> defending them at all costs and promoting is another.
Promoting..? Show me where I have promoted them.
> Of course
> this is Usenet and everyone's free to express their opinion. I'm
> just questioning the fervor with which he does it, that's
> all...it's too weird.
Ok that's your opinion and you are entitled to it, just as I am to mine.
Phil Thompson wrote:
> On 6 Aug 2005 03:28:42 -0700, "bence_fab" <orsolyka@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> It's still my opinion that said person is a Sipgate employee.
>
> Ivor says this is not the case, but has admitted to some other
> "connection" with Sipgate that he won't clarify. Perhaps he sleeps
> with the CEO or something :-)
>
> Phil
As Sipgate are in Germany and I'm in the UK (and very firmly straight)
that would not be easy..!
VoIP Knowledge wrote:
> Ivor,
>
> It's weird how the majority of posts about sipgate are about how
> crap their service yet you are bent on defending them. Their
> support is attrocious and everyone knows it. Their service works
> "most of the time" but it can hardly be classified as "reliable".
> My concern is that you give other readers on this newsgroup a
> completely incorrect view of them.
So are you in this post. The support could be better but it is far from
atrocious. Re. reliability I can only go by personal experience, as can
you. If my service is working, do you expect me to say it isn't just
because yours isn't..?
> You're the guy who also said "sipgate will come good" re an article
> by pc pro which was pathetic. If you are not an employee then you
> must be an investor of some kind.
>
> Mike
bence_fab wrote:
>>> Secondly I have used Google Groups once in my life, when I was on
>>> holiday
> in the USA, so where you got that one from is a mystery to me.
>
> Is there another Ivor Jones then? cause when I look up the
> statistics for this group here:
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....ip/about?hl=en
>
> you are the all-time top user (granted, second-highest this month
> six days in). That one time in your life must have been quite a big
> session...
>
> Honestly, maybe I confused you with another Ivor or I misunderstood
> this statement of yours.
I use this group uk.telecom.voip yes but not via Google. This is a usenet
group which is not limited to access via Google.
> There is one big problem that has been outstanding for weeks and weeks
> months even " Voicemail BETA" tell me Ivor how many companies do you
> know of that has had a service in beta this long I feel that Sipgate
> voice mail will still be in beta when the first astronaut's return
> from mars .
>
Well, it's been 2 and a half years ...
Off the top of my head, the cambridge cable CM trialls were nearly that
long ....
The 2.6 kernel was in beta for 2 years and a month. (comparatively 2.4
was in beta for 1 year and 8 months and the 2.2 was in beta for 2 years
and 2.2 was for 2 years and 4 months).
Okay, buggered if I know, but if it's not ready it's not ready.
I for one wouldn't let a service that doesn't officially work bias me
against a company, since I wouldn't consider it to be a service that is
part of the product.
>
> > You're the guy who also said "sipgate will come good" re an article
> > by pc pro which was pathetic. If you are not an employee then you
> > must be an investor of some kind.
> >
> > Mike
>
> Wrong on both counts.
Ivor,
I for one would like to know what the nature of the association is. You
have admitted that there is a connection but only after you were hard
pressed. Before that you were posing as just a normal Sipgate customer
which is deceipt in my opinion. If you're not an investor and you're
not an employee there is definitely a financial interest. I know you're
not going to tell us what that connection is here but you're on thin
ice in my opinion. It would benefit everyone I think if you yourself
looked around and sampled other VoIP providers around who actually make
an effort to provide a good service. You might be enlightened.
Regarding the Sipgate voicemail beta launch I can't believe people are
comparing this to Microsoft and Linux OS. This is just an
Asterisk-based voicemail service that anyone with a little bit of good
know-how could do half-decently.
On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 20:38:08 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>> You're the guy who also said "sipgate will come good" re an article
>> by pc pro which was pathetic. If you are not an employee then you
>> must be an investor of some kind.
>>
>> Mike
>
>Wrong on both counts.
Why all the secrecy Ivor? You may not be an employee or an investor,
but you clearly have some close connection with the company. For
example, you were able to announce that their voicemail service would
be released a couple of weeks before it became public information. You
were also able to state a few days ago exactly how many voice files
Sipgate's voicemail system uses. You could only have had access to
that information with connections inside the company that the rest of
us don't have.
You are quick to condemn other VoIP providers when they promote their
services on this non-commercial newsgroup, yet that is in effect what
you are doing by your constant support of Sipgate. If your connection
with them is something a simple as having a friend who works there,
then why not just say so?
"Chris Blunt" <chris_blunt@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:iv2cf159kpmekhpgljur9v33jijoka20ma@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 6 Aug 2005 20:38:08 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> You're the guy who also said "sipgate will come good" re an article
>>> by pc pro which was pathetic. If you are not an employee then you
>>> must be an investor of some kind.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>
>>Wrong on both counts.
>
> Why all the secrecy Ivor? You may not be an employee or an investor,
> but you clearly have some close connection with the company. For
> example, you were able to announce that their voicemail service would
> be released a couple of weeks before it became public information. You
> were also able to state a few days ago exactly how many voice files
> Sipgate's voicemail system uses. You could only have had access to
> that information with connections inside the company that the rest of
> us don't have.
>
> You are quick to condemn other VoIP providers when they promote their
> services on this non-commercial newsgroup, yet that is in effect what
> you are doing by your constant support of Sipgate. If your connection
> with them is something a simple as having a friend who works there,
> then why not just say so?
>
> Chris
funny how secretive ivor has gone quiet over this isnt it ????????????
Thus spaketh VoIP Knowledge:
> Ivor,
>
> It's weird how the majority of posts about sipgate are about how crap
> their service yet you are bent on defending them. Their support is
> attrocious and everyone knows it. Their service works "most of the
> time" but it can hardly be classified as "reliable". My concern is
> that you give other readers on this newsgroup a completely incorrect
> view of them.
>
> You're the guy who also said "sipgate will come good" re an article
> by pc pro which was pathetic. If you are not an employee then you
> must be an investor of some kind.
>
I've had the odd problem, but overall their service is fine, I am more than
happy with it.
--
For South East Brum: http://www.south-east-birmingham.tk
For Free £10 credit when you get referred to TalkTalk or £5 when referred to
easyMobile contact me via above site.
I phoned another uk voip provider today and enquired about porting my
sipgate number to them. They said they were getting a few queries per day
about porting sipgate numbers over and they planned to offer a special
incentive for existing sipgate subscribers to port their number. Apparently
they are planning to offer revenue share on 08 numbers, and free weekend
calls for customers who moved over from sipgate to their network!
Sounds like joining sipgate may have its advantages after all.
<Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:g3a5f1l2pkhb0cnq4jhmsn4p49t6hr78g7@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 22:36:55 +0100, LanMan <lanman@noworkie.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >This company is so bad I've given up and left a fiver in my a/c as I
> >cannot put up with the problems any more.
> Personally I would not leave them a halfpence I am only using my
> account now for 0845 and 0870 calls .
Re: Sipgate Voicemail is CRAP 
Linear Mode
