«

"Al" <.@_.invalid> wrote in message
news:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:10:15 +0000 (UTC), Brian wrote:
>
> > Leaving aside a WiFi phone, you are well aware that the
> > Skype program requires a computer.
>
> Just for the record, an ATA, as used for voip, is also a
> computer.

It may have a processor, that isn't the same thing as what is generally
accepted as a computer, which you know perfectly well.

Ivor

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:39:39 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:

>It may have a processor, that isn't the same thing as what is generally
>accepted as a computer, which you know perfectly well.

What is your definition of a "computer"? As far as I'm concerned my
ATAs are computers, just as my Pocket PC is a computer. Incidentally
my Pocket PC supports Skype and it's smaller than many ATAs.

As a matter of fact I choose not to use Skype, but it's still a voip
product.

"Al" <.@_.invalid> wrote in message
news:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:39:39 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> > It may have a processor, that isn't the same thing as
> > what is generally accepted as a computer, which you
> > know perfectly well.
>
> What is your definition of a "computer"? As far as I'm
> concerned my ATAs are computers, just as my Pocket PC is
> a computer. Incidentally my Pocket PC supports Skype and
> it's smaller than many ATAs.

You know perfectly well what I mean.

> As a matter of fact I choose not to use Skype, but it's
> still a voip product.

But not one usable on my systems, hence I do not count it.

Ivor

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:13:47 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:

>"Al" <.@_.invalid> wrote in message
>news:
>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:39:39 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:

>> As a matter of fact I choose not to use Skype, but it's
>> still a voip product.
>
>But not one usable on my systems, hence I do not count it.

Ah, at last we're getting somewhere. Previously you were talking about
"computer", then you changed it to "PC" and now it's "system" - any
more offers?

So your definition of voip is limited to something "usable on your
systems". Are your systems listed as part of the international
definition of voip? If so, please point me to where I can find that.

"Al" <.@_.invalid> wrote in message
news:

[snip]

> Ah, at last we're getting somewhere. Previously you were
> talking about "computer", then you changed it to "PC" and
> now it's "system" - any more offers?

You know perfectly well what the majority of people mean by the word
"computer" so don't go on telling me that your ATA is one. It may have a
processor but it doesn't have a keyboard, screen, disk drive and all the
other components, does it..?

Any VoIP service that requires what most people regard as a computer to be
on in order to use it does not qualify as usable in my view.

> So your definition of voip is limited to something
> "usable on your systems". Are your systems listed as part
> of the international definition of voip? If so, please
> point me to where I can find that.

I never said that. Who says I did..?

Ivor

Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Al" <.@_.invalid> wrote in message
> news:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Ah, at last we're getting somewhere. Previously you were
> > talking about "computer", then you changed it to "PC" and
> > now it's "system" - any more offers?
>
> You know perfectly well what the majority of people mean by the word
> "computer" so don't go on telling me that your ATA is one. It may have a
> processor but it doesn't have a keyboard, screen, disk drive and all the
> other components, does it..?
>
> Any VoIP service that requires what most people regard as a computer to be
> on in order to use it does not qualify as usable in my view.
>

But that's YOUR view and apparently not one shared by the majority of
VOIP users.

"Andy Lord" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com
> Ivor Jones wrote:
> > "Al" <.@_.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Ah, at last we're getting somewhere. Previously you
> > > were talking about "computer", then you changed it to
> > > "PC" and now it's "system" - any more offers?
> >
> > You know perfectly well what the majority of people
> > mean by the word "computer" so don't go on telling me
> > that your ATA is one. It may have a processor but it
> > doesn't have a keyboard, screen, disk drive and all the
> > other components, does it..?
> >
> > Any VoIP service that requires what most people regard
> > as a computer to be on in order to use it does not
> > qualify as usable in my view.
> >
>
> But that's YOUR view and apparently not one shared by the
> majority of VOIP users.

Your definintion of majority..?

Ivor

Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Andy Lord" <> wrote in message
> news: ups.com
> > Ivor Jones wrote:
> > > "Al" <.@_.invalid> wrote in message
> > > news:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > Ah, at last we're getting somewhere. Previously you
> > > > were talking about "computer", then you changed it to
> > > > "PC" and now it's "system" - any more offers?
> > >
> > > You know perfectly well what the majority of people
> > > mean by the word "computer" so don't go on telling me
> > > that your ATA is one. It may have a processor but it
> > > doesn't have a keyboard, screen, disk drive and all the
> > > other components, does it..?
> > >
> > > Any VoIP service that requires what most people regard
> > > as a computer to be on in order to use it does not
> > > qualify as usable in my view.
> > >
> >
> > But that's YOUR view and apparently not one shared by the
> > majority of VOIP users.
>
> Your definintion of majority..?

I thought I was killfiled?

FWIW: the dictionary definition.

Of course I have no statistics to back that up, hence my use of
'apparently'. Based on common sense, the number of acquaintancies that
I have that seem happy to use PC based VOIP services on a regular basis
and the tiny number of acquaintancies that are even aware of what an
ATA is.

If you have statistics to the contrary please share. I strongly suspect
though that even the *regular* users of Skype, Babble, Google Talk, the
various 'Messenger' voip clients and people who seem to have no
objection to regularly using softphones to access 'standard' Voip
services vastly outnumber people who use (your definition of) an ATA to
connect.

Virtually everyone I know is a user of some type of VOIP service. I can
think of maybe 7 users, apart from small businesses, that use ATAs and
all bar one use either Freetalk or Vonage 'locked' routers. The 'One'
is my sister, whose set-up I'm look after.

As a Sipgate evangelist YMMV but I have know reason to believe that my
acquaintancies aren't broadly typical of the 16-40 age group.

I've think I've tested most, popular, PC based, VOIP services. I don't
use any of them, ever, to actually communicate with people. Like you I
don't believe that they're a usable solution. However, unlike you
apparently, I'm fully aware that I'm in an absolute minority in my
belief, and I'm prepared to accept that I may be wrong.

In article <>, Ivor Jones
<> Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:01:39 writes

>Any VoIP service that requires what most people regard as a computer to
>be on in order to use it does not qualify as usable in my view.

I would second that, as far as I am concerned.

Where you have a small flat, where a single phone may suffice, a
computer based VoIP may be just as convenient.

Where you have several extensions, possibly over two or more floors, it
clearly cannot compete with a normal phone.

Well before Skype I used to talk to my daughter, living abroad, using a
PC headset and a point-to-point VoIP program - the name escapes me. We
would ring each other on the normal phone first, and if convenient,
would move to the PC to initiate an extended VoIP call.

We both tired of this arrangement and eventually I installed a Sipura
3000 and connected it to my switchboard as an other incoming line. She
installed something similar and connected a DECT phone to it.

We can now talk to each other using VoIP as if it were a "normal" phone
line.


--
Les Desser
(The Reply-to address IS valid)