In message <45009dd6$0$565$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>, mark
eldon <mark@csluk.f9.co.uk> writes
>Price of 9.98 persuaded me to invest in a tesco phone last weekend
>
>However , cant use audio features of phone
>
>Windows keeps finding USB Audio Device but no driver for it and the "help"
>desk keep cutting me off
Wasn't there a disk with it that contained drivers?
thanks for the prompt reply Martin - only drivers on site are for skype
phones and similar
no USB audio drivers on disk - picked Tesco because of choice of area code
In article <4500ac87$0$566$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>,
mark eldon <mark@csluk.f9.co.uk> wrote:
>thanks for the prompt reply Martin - only drivers on site are for skype
>phones and similar
>no USB audio drivers on disk - picked Tesco because of choice of area code
I didn't need any drivers to make it work under XP (nor Linux either
for that matter) However, I haven't used the Tesco software (I got it
as it was a cheap USB 'phone' and for nothing else)
"mark eldon" <mark@csluk.f9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4500ac87$0$566$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net
> thanks for the prompt reply Martin - only drivers on site
> are for skype phones and similar
> no USB audio drivers on disk - picked Tesco because of
> choice of area code
You can get any code you want from many suppliers. Sipgate
(www.sipgate.co.uk) have free numbers for any area and no monthly charge.
Also being SIP you can use an adaptor and an ordinary phone, you aren't
tied to a computer.
Thus spaketh mark eldon:
> Thanks for reply - new to all this voip stuff
>
> I signed up for Tesco to get £5 worth of calls and an 0203 number but
> cant hear anything over the phone either in or out
>
> Mark
There are many other providers that issue 020 numbers, not sure how many
issue local numbers beginning 3 though.
Thus spaketh Ivor Jones:
> "mark eldon" <mark@csluk.f9.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4500ac87$0$566$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net
>> thanks for the prompt reply Martin - only drivers on site
>> are for skype phones and similar
>> no USB audio drivers on disk - picked Tesco because of
>> choice of area code
>
> You can get any code you want from many suppliers. Sipgate
> (www.sipgate.co.uk) have free numbers for any area and no monthly
> charge. Also being SIP you can use an adaptor and an ordinary phone,
> you aren't tied to a computer.
>
> Ivor
Have they sorted out the IPKALL issue, do they have a timescale, or have
they just decided they don't care if they annoy all their customers?
"{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:v34Mg.15564$r61.2150@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk...
> Thus spaketh Ivor Jones:
>> "mark eldon" <mark@csluk.f9.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:4500ac87$0$566$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net
>>> thanks for the prompt reply Martin - only drivers on site
>>> are for skype phones and similar
>>> no USB audio drivers on disk - picked Tesco because of
>>> choice of area code
>>
>> You can get any code you want from many suppliers. Sipgate
>> (www.sipgate.co.uk) have free numbers for any area and no monthly
>> charge. Also being SIP you can use an adaptor and an ordinary phone,
>> you aren't tied to a computer.
>>
>> Ivor
>
>
> Have they sorted out the IPKALL issue, do they have a timescale, or have
> they just decided they don't care if they annoy all their customers?
>
>
> --
> DVD rental: www.southeastbirmingham.co.uk/dvd
> PAYG Mobile Offers: www.southeastbirmingham.co.uk/payg
> Items for sale: www.dodgy-dealer.co.uk
I am with Tesco now for the last 6 weeks. Absolutely perfect. The sound
quality that Skype couldn't offer, is offered by Tesco. To answer the IP
answer. I have seen this problem. Menu, options, audio devices. Choose USB
Audio device.
"{{{{{Welcome}}}}}" <bhx___spam@trapped___hotmail.co.uk>
wrote in message
news:v34Mg.15564$r61.2150@text.news.blueyonder.co. uk
>
> Have they sorted out the IPKALL issue, do they have a
> timescale, or have they just decided they don't care if
> they annoy all their customers?
I asked about this and they have told me that they have sent instructions
to IPKall on how to authenticate with sipgate servers, maybe it is just
taking some time to implement. It's down to them now, anyway.
"The Invalid" <the_invalid@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ob62g21jth0fi581n9vdef4q9vj3orpqvg@4ax.com
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 02:10:14 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "mark eldon" <mark@csluk.f9.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:4500ac87$0$566$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net
> > > thanks for the prompt reply Martin - only drivers on
> > > site are for skype phones and similar
> > > no USB audio drivers on disk - picked Tesco because of
> > > choice of area code
> >
> > You can get any code you want from many suppliers.
> > Sipgate (www.sipgate.co.uk) have free numbers for any
> > area and no monthly charge. Also being SIP you can use
> > an adaptor and an ordinary phone, you aren't tied to a
> > computer.
> >
> > Ivor
> >
> Says the man addicted to Sipgate
I'm not getting into a slanging match so don't bother trying to start one.
>Thanks for reply - new to all this voip stuff
>
>I signed up for Tesco to get £5 worth of calls and an 0203 number but cant
>hear anything over the phone either in or out
>
>Mark
I found the sound quality quite poor using the handset. Using my own
headset, the sound quality was perfectly fine.
"The Invalid" <the_invalid@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0r4ag2tcpqbo7l5is99d53fqg2ls69d4mf@4ax.com
[snip]
> However, your continual rubbishing of Skype for other
> products which are inferior is getting extremely tedious,
I am doing no such thing.
Ok, if normal VoIP systems are inferior to Skype, tell me *how* and *why*
they are inferior. Tell me in *precise technical terms* how Skype is
superior to any service which allows me to use the same phone as I use for
normal PSTN calls for VoIP calls, without a computer needing to be
switched on. Example - I have a phone next to me as I type this that will
ring for an incoming call to any one of around 6 SIP accounts, including
three UK numbers, a German number and a US one. As well as the PSTN line.
It's a normal DECT cordless phone so I can be anywhere in the house with
it and none of my computers are involved.
> so I will always rebut the tripe you post should I see
> fit.
"The Invalid" <the_invalid@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:97qcg2tiu5t0lhv96dqd2rnusaar0hafeu@4ax.com
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 10:47:10 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "The Invalid" <the_invalid@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:0r4ag2tcpqbo7l5is99d53fqg2ls69d4mf@4ax.com
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > However, your continual rubbishing of Skype for other
> > > products which are inferior is getting extremely
> > > tedious,
> >
> > I am doing no such thing.
> >
> > Ok, if normal VoIP systems are inferior to Skype, tell
> > me *how* and *why* they are inferior. Tell me in
> > *precise technical terms* how Skype is superior to any
> > service which allows me to use the same phone as I use
> > for normal PSTN calls for VoIP calls, without a
> > computer needing to be switched on. Example - I have a
> > phone next to me as I type this that will ring for an
> > incoming call to any one of around 6 SIP accounts,
> > including three UK numbers, a German number and a US
> > one. As well as the PSTN line.
>
> You don't need a computer on for Skype now, and I can
> also use it on my MDA.
I asked you to tell me in precise technical terms. But as you can't seem
to manage that, just show me an ATA that I can plug into my router and use
an ordinary phone with Skype. Not a USB device, not a PDA or anything
similar, a box that plugs into a router's Ethernet port.
> The call quality using Skype is also far superior than
> many other VOIP services
That's a subjective argument and can't really be proven. What you consider
superior call quality and what I consider superior call quality can't
really be compared as everyone's view will be different.
> > It's a normal DECT cordless phone so I can be anywhere
> > in the house with it and none of my computers are
> > involved.
> >
> > > so I will always rebut the tripe you post should I see
> > > fit.
> >
> > Truth hurts, I see.
> >
> It hurts you
Not really, but you seem to be talking tripe again.
"The Invalid" <the_invalid@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:531ig2hebgo9f4srp8ve89q429g482b0jb@4ax.com
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:40:53 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
> > I asked you to tell me in precise technical terms. But
> > as you can't seem to manage that, just show me an ATA
> > that I can plug into my router and use an ordinary
> > phone with Skype. Not a USB device, not a PDA or
> > anything similar, a box that plugs into a router's
> > Ethernet port
>
> Why would I want to do that?
Because only then would I consider Skype to be a usable service.
> > > The call quality using Skype is also far superior
> > > than many other VOIP services
> >
> > That's a subjective argument and can't really be proven.
> It can easily be proven as I didn with several VOIP
> accounts and Skype.
>
> The call quality on Skype was superior to all of the
> other systems
How..? What were the measurements obtained in your experiments..?
"The Invalid" <the_invalid@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uhukg2lnfifupc1bt13d6iuradic3fk56o@4ax.com
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:10:12 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
> > > > I asked you to tell me in precise technical terms.
> > > > But as you can't seem to manage that, just show me
> > > > an ATA that I can plug into my router and use an
> > > > ordinary phone with Skype. Not a USB device, not a
> > > > PDA or anything similar, a box that plugs into a
> > > > router's Ethernet port
> > >
> > > Why would I want to do that?
> >
> > Because only then would I consider Skype to be a usable
> > service.
>
> Why do you think I am bothered by what you would consider?
That's not what I asked.
> > > > > The call quality using Skype is also far superior
> > > > > than many other VOIP services
> > > >
> > > > That's a subjective argument and can't really be
> > > > proven.
> >
> > > It can easily be proven as I didn with several VOIP
> > > accounts and Skype.
> > >
> > > The call quality on Skype was superior to all of the
> > > other systems
> >
> > How..? What were the measurements obtained in your
> > experiments..?
>
> My ear
> That tells me good or bad quality
It is also impossible to prove. I am basically a scientist, I require
proof before I accept something as fact.
hairydog@despammed.com wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 08:44:03 +0100, The Invalid
> <the_invalid@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >However, your continual rubbishing of Skype for other products which
> >are inferior
>
> Skype uses a proprietary protocol from one company only, depends on
> stealing bandwidth, and has no price competition to force a good deal.
> SIP VOIP is open standards with hundreds of competing suppliers, and
> is a far better long-term investment.
I tried Skype with no success. Their tech support sent me a few canned
messages, and people in forums tried to be helpful, but to no avail.
After I switched to a different provider their skilled tech support
found out that my router was no good, and after I replaced it all was
good. There is no free lunch.
"The Invalid" <the_invalid@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nc8qg29aaf6rpvjrd8gtrukvpf2lhr2k2f@4ax.com
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:46:25 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
> <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > My ear
> > > That tells me good or bad quality
> >
> > It is also impossible to prove. I am basically a
> > scientist, I require proof before I accept something as
> > fact.
> 'basically' ?
Oh do put a space in, it's not that hard.
Basically. It's a word, it's in the dictionary. Look it up.
> > Either you can give me that proof or you can't.
>
> You don't believe that Skype quality is better and I
> doubt you would accept any proof so try it yourself, But
> I bet you still wont believe yourself
I will believe it when you can provide me with proof. If that proof is
scientifically obtained it will be verifiable so I will have no choice but
to accept it.
Ivor Jones wrote:
> "The Invalid" <the_invalid@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:nc8qg29aaf6rpvjrd8gtrukvpf2lhr2k2f@4ax.com
>
>>On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 11:46:25 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
>><ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>My ear
>>>>That tells me good or bad quality
>>>
>>>It is also impossible to prove. I am basically a
>>>scientist, I require proof before I accept something as
>>>fact.
>
>
>>'basically' ?
>
>
> Oh do put a space in, it's not that hard.
>
> Basically. It's a word, it's in the dictionary. Look it up.
>
>
>>>Either you can give me that proof or you can't.
>>
>>You don't believe that Skype quality is better and I
>>doubt you would accept any proof so try it yourself, But
>>I bet you still wont believe yourself
>
>
> I will believe it when you can provide me with proof. If that proof is
> scientifically obtained it will be verifiable so I will have no choice but
> to accept it.
>
> I won't hold my breath waiting.
>
> Ivor
>
>
Skype's protocols are not "open" but they have been
subjected to scientific examination. Computer scientists
from the University of Columbia, NY published a paper 2
years ago describing their experiments.
Amongst the results, they were able to measure a
pass-through of frequencies between 50Hz and 8,000Hz - twice
the bandwidth of a typical telephony codec sampling at 8KHz.
This is why a Skype call will normally sound much clearer
than other telephony (including the PSTN). Wideband codecs
of this clarity are normally only found on ISDN terminals
for the broadcasting market.
Bandwidth requirements for a call were measured at 5
Kbytes/sec (combined directions) for a number of uncongested
network conditions. This compares favourably with the
normal, low-bandwidth codecs - the PSTN G.711 codec uses
8kbytes in each direction. Intelligibility would be reduced
if there is congestion.
If you want to read the paper yourself, search for the
authors - Baset and Schulzrinne. They decribe their test
methods, so it should be possible to replicate the
experiments.
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 09:56:02 +0100, JW <jw@privacy.net> wrote:
>Amongst the results, they were able to measure a
>pass-through of frequencies between 50Hz and 8,000Hz - twice
>the bandwidth of a typical telephony codec sampling at 8KHz.
> This is why a Skype call will normally sound much clearer
>than other telephony (including the PSTN).
Yes, the sound quality of Skype-Skype calls is good. But to break out
of nerd2nerd mode it has to interconnect with POTS systems. And these
are all in the process of going VOIP, using different codec schemes.
When a Skype call has to be decoded and recoded - which is necessary
because Skype doesn't use the universal systems - the quality
plummets.
tesco voip 
Linear Mode
