Voipfone Press Release

Discussion in 'UK VOIP' started by cjd, Jun 3, 2005.

  1. cjd

    cjd Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. cjd

    David Floyd Guest

    In message of Fri, 3 Jun 2005, cjd writes
    >fyi
    >
    >http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/search.cgi?id=445
    >


    Pity that they don't know how to present their own number
    (0207 043 5559) !

    Not impressed with companies that cannot present their number correctly.

    DF
     
    David Floyd, Jun 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. cjd

    keymaster Guest

    "cjd" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > fyi
    >
    > http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/search.cgi?id=445
    >


    Hi
    as you can see from my previous posts I was a big voipfone fan, and vocally
    so. but after a telephone conversation with them last month I asked them to
    close my account. however they decided this package builder was so good they
    signed me up for another month.
    other than being a couple of quid cheaper I cannot see any difference.
    I went into my account and clicked on the "package builder" icon, now I may
    well be mistaken and a complete idiot, but i can see no way to "build a
    package" I cant seem to add any of the many functions they are advertising
    on that "press release".
    I wish voipfone all the best with their great ideas as ideas go they are
    great, but they have been promising them "next week" for so long many of us
    feel we have been made complete fools of.
    best wishes
    Roy
     
    keymaster, Jun 3, 2005
    #3
  4. cjd

    Paul D.Smith Guest

    Glad I'm not the only pedant in London ;-).

    Paul DS

    > Pity that they don't know how to present their own number
    > (0207 043 5559) !
    >
    > Not impressed with companies that cannot present their number correctly.
    >
    > DF
     
    Paul D.Smith, Jun 3, 2005
    #4
  5. cjd

    David Floyd Guest

    In message of Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Paul D.Smith writes
    >> Pity that they don't know how to present their own number
    >> (0207 043 5559) !
    >>
    >> Not impressed with companies that cannot present their number correctly.
    >>
    >> DF


    (Please take note of footnote)

    >Glad I'm not the only pedant in London ;-).
    >
    >Paul DS
    >


    I'm nowhere near London.

    DF
    --
    A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
    Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
    A: Top-posting.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?
     
    David Floyd, Jun 3, 2005
    #5
  6. cjd

    Tony Hoyle Guest

    keymaster wrote:
    > "cjd" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > fyi
    > >
    > > http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/search.cgi?id=445
    > >

    >
    > Hi
    > other than being a couple of quid cheaper I cannot see any difference.
    > I went into my account and clicked on the "package builder" icon, now I may
    > well be mistaken and a complete idiot, but i can see no way to "build a
    > package" I cant seem to add any of the many functions they are advertising
    > on that "press release".


    I was waiting for this to see what it would give as options (I want a
    basic service with as cheap calls as possible). I notice they have SMS
    but there's no mention of an SMSC... if you can't send via asterisk
    it's not really that useful to me (I want it for server uptime/failure
    notifications).

    It's not really 'build a package' more like 'here is the package.. do
    you want fries with that?'.

    Tony
     
    Tony Hoyle, Jun 3, 2005
    #6
  7. cjd

    Mark Guest

    On 3 Jun 2005 02:57:47 -0700, "cjd" <> wrote:

    >fyi
    >
    >http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/search.cgi?id=445



    On the assumption that 'cjd' is Colin Duffy (CEO of Inet Telecoms,
    trading as Voipfone) it would be good if he would consider joining in
    some of the debate here.....

    Or perhaps nominating someone on his behalf.


    --
    Mark
     
    Mark, Jun 3, 2005
    #7
  8. cjd

    Guest

    On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:36:31 +0100, David Floyd <>
    wrote:

    >In message of Fri, 3 Jun 2005, cjd writes
    >>fyi
    >>
    >>http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/search.cgi?id=445
    >>

    >
    >Pity that they don't know how to present their own number
    >(0207 043 5559) !
    >
    >Not impressed with companies that cannot present their number correctly.
    >
    >DF

    Just what difference dose it make David providing the given number IS
    correct? you are just being bloody fussy I personally would sooner see
    London numbers presented in the way .
     
    , Jun 3, 2005
    #8
  9. cjd

    Guest

    On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:37:36 +0100, "keymaster" <>
    wrote:


    >I wish voipfone all the best with their great ideas as ideas go they are
    >great, but they have been promising them "next week" for so long many of us
    >feel we have been made complete fools of.
    >best wishes

    At least with VOIPFONE you CAN be 100% certain of picking up the phone
    and being able to make a call which you cannot be with one voip
    provider no names mentioned .
     
    , Jun 3, 2005
    #9
  10. cjd

    Ivor Jones Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:37:36 +0100, "keymaster" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I wish voipfone all the best with their great ideas as ideas go they are
    >>great, but they have been promising them "next week" for so long many of
    >>us
    >>feel we have been made complete fools of.
    >>best wishes

    > At least with VOIPFONE you CAN be 100% certain of picking up the phone
    > and being able to make a call which you cannot be with one voip
    > provider no names mentioned .


    100%..? Are you sure..? Nothing is 100% certain except death and taxes..!

    Ivor
     
    Ivor Jones, Jun 4, 2005
    #10
  11. cjd

    Ivor Jones Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:36:31 +0100, David Floyd <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>In message of Fri, 3 Jun 2005, cjd writes
    >>>fyi
    >>>
    >>>http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/search.cgi?id=445
    >>>

    >>
    >>Pity that they don't know how to present their own number
    >>(0207 043 5559) !
    >>
    >>Not impressed with companies that cannot present their number correctly.
    >>
    >>DF

    > Just what difference dose it make David providing the given number IS
    > correct? you are just being bloody fussy I personally would sooner see
    > London numbers presented in the way .


    In the way what..?!

    There is one way and one way only to present a London number and that is
    020 <space> local number. The 7 or 8 (and now 3) at the start of the
    number is *not* part of the code, end of story..!

    It *does* make a difference how the number is presented, haven't you read
    any of the thread in uk.telecom on this very topic..?! (See "BBC News -
    New 0203 numbers for Londoners")

    Ivor
     
    Ivor Jones, Jun 4, 2005
    #11
  12. cjd

    Guest

    On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 00:33:41 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
    <> wrote:

    >
    ><> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:36:31 +0100, David Floyd <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>In message of Fri, 3 Jun 2005, cjd writes
    >>>>fyi
    >>>>
    >>>>http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/search.cgi?id=445
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>Pity that they don't know how to present their own number
    >>>(0207 043 5559) !
    >>>
    >>>Not impressed with companies that cannot present their number correctly.
    >>>
    >>>DF

    >> Just what difference dose it make David providing the given number IS
    >> correct? you are just being bloody fussy I personally would sooner see
    >> London numbers presented in the way .

    >
    >In the way what..?!
    >
    >There is one way and one way only to present a London number and that is
    >020 <space> local number. The 7 or 8 (and now 3) at the start of the
    >number is *not* part of the code, end of story..!
    >
    >It *does* make a difference how the number is presented, haven't you read
    >any of the thread in uk.telecom on this very topic..?! (See "BBC News -
    >New 0203 numbers for Londoners")
    >
    >Ivor

    If you are saying This <(0207 043 5559> is wrong then I agree with you
    Ivor it should be "020 7043 5559" .
     
    , Jun 4, 2005
    #12
  13. wrote:
    > On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 00:33:41 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > ><> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:36:31 +0100, David Floyd <>
    > >> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>In message of Fri, 3 Jun 2005, cjd writes
    > >>>>fyi
    > >>>>
    > >>>>http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/search.cgi?id=445
    > >>>>
    > >>>
    > >>>Pity that they don't know how to present their own number
    > >>>(0207 043 5559) !
    > >>>
    > >>>Not impressed with companies that cannot present their number correctly.
    > >>>
    > >>>DF
    > >> Just what difference dose it make David providing the given number IS
    > >> correct? you are just being bloody fussy I personally would sooner see
    > >> London numbers presented in the way .

    > >
    > >In the way what..?!
    > >
    > >There is one way and one way only to present a London number and that is
    > >020 <space> local number. The 7 or 8 (and now 3) at the start of the
    > >number is *not* part of the code, end of story..!
    > >
    > >It *does* make a difference how the number is presented, haven't you read
    > >any of the thread in uk.telecom on this very topic..?! (See "BBC News -
    > >New 0203 numbers for Londoners")
    > >
    > >Ivor

    > If you are saying This <(0207 043 5559> is wrong then I agree with you
    > Ivor it should be "020 7043 5559" .


    Does it realy matter ?

    Mat
     
    Mathew Curtis, Jun 4, 2005
    #13
  14. cjd

    Ivor Jones Guest

    "Mathew Curtis" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > wrote:
    >> On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 00:33:41 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
    >> <> wrote:


    [snip]

    >> >It *does* make a difference how the number is presented, haven't you
    >> >read
    >> >any of the thread in uk.telecom on this very topic..?! (See "BBC
    >> >News -
    >> >New 0203 numbers for Londoners")
    >> >
    >> >Ivor

    >> If you are saying This <(0207 043 5559> is wrong then I agree with you
    >> Ivor it should be "020 7043 5559" .

    >
    > Does it realy matter ?
    >
    > Mat


    *** YES..!! ***

    See the thread mentioned above in uk.telecom - it is *vital* - a
    mis-represented number could result in mis-routed and/or lost calls. My
    London Sipgate number is 020 7043 xxxx - spaced the wrong way it could
    give the impression that only the last 7 digits are required for a local
    call originated in London. Try dialling "043 xxxx" in London and see what
    happens, if anything.

    Ivor
     
    Ivor Jones, Jun 4, 2005
    #14
  15. cjd

    Don Carter Guest

    On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 05:32:31 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Mathew Curtis" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >>
    >>
    >> wrote:
    >>> On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 00:33:41 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
    >>> <> wrote:

    >
    >[snip]
    >
    >>> >It *does* make a difference how the number is presented, haven't you
    >>> >read
    >>> >any of the thread in uk.telecom on this very topic..?! (See "BBC
    >>> >News -
    >>> >New 0203 numbers for Londoners")
    >>> >
    >>> >Ivor
    >>> If you are saying This <(0207 043 5559> is wrong then I agree with you
    >>> Ivor it should be "020 7043 5559" .

    >>
    >> Does it realy matter ?
    >>
    >> Mat

    >
    >*** YES..!! ***

    ***NO..!!***
     
    Don Carter, Jun 4, 2005
    #15
  16. cjd

    David Floyd Guest

    In message of Sat, 4 Jun 2005, writes
    >On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 00:33:41 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >><> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 11:36:31 +0100, David Floyd <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>In message of Fri, 3 Jun 2005, cjd writes
    >>>>>fyi
    >>>>>
    >>>>>http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/search.cgi?id=445
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Pity that they don't know how to present their own number
    >>>>(0207 043 5559) !
    >>>>
    >>>>Not impressed with companies that cannot present their number correctly.
    >>>>
    >>>>DF
    >>> Just what difference dose it make David providing the given number IS
    >>> correct? you are just being bloody fussy I personally would sooner see
    >>> London numbers presented in the way .

    >>
    >>In the way what..?!
    >>
    >>There is one way and one way only to present a London number and that is
    >>020 <space> local number. The 7 or 8 (and now 3) at the start of the
    >>number is *not* part of the code, end of story..!
    >>
    >>It *does* make a difference how the number is presented, haven't you read
    >>any of the thread in uk.telecom on this very topic..?! (See "BBC News -
    >>New 0203 numbers for Londoners")
    >>
    >>Ivor

    >If you are saying This <(0207 043 5559> is wrong then I agree with you
    >Ivor it should be "020 7043 5559" .
    >


    So why did you say I was being *bloody fussy* then?
     
    David Floyd, Jun 4, 2005
    #16
  17. cjd

    Ivor Jones Guest

    "Don Carter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 05:32:31 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
    > <> wrote:
    >>"Mathew Curtis" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...


    [snip]

    >>> Does it realy matter ?
    >>>
    >>> Mat

    >>
    >>*** YES..!! ***

    > ***NO..!!***


    Please explain. And please trim..!!

    Ivor
     
    Ivor Jones, Jun 4, 2005
    #17
  18. cjd

    Ivor Jones Guest

    "David Floyd" <> wrote in message
    news:geiaxptfDVoCFwGI@127.0.0.1...
    > In message of Sat, 4 Jun 2005, writes
    >>On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 00:33:41 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
    >><> wrote:


    [snip]

    >>>It *does* make a difference how the number is presented, haven't you
    >>>read
    >>>any of the thread in uk.telecom on this very topic..?! (See "BBC News -
    >>>New 0203 numbers for Londoners")
    >>>
    >>>Ivor

    >
    >>If you are saying This <(0207 043 5559> is wrong then I agree with you
    >>Ivor it should be "020 7043 5559" .
    >>

    >
    > So why did you say I was being *bloody fussy* then?


    You misread. *I* didn't say that, dexter did.

    Ivor
     
    Ivor Jones, Jun 4, 2005
    #18
  19. cjd

    David Floyd Guest

    In message of Sat, 4 Jun 2005, Ivor Jones writes
    >
    >"David Floyd" <> wrote in message
    >news:geiaxptfDVoCFwGI@127.0.0.1...
    >> In message of Sat, 4 Jun 2005, writes
    >>>On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 00:33:41 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
    >>><> wrote:

    >
    >[snip]
    >
    >>>>It *does* make a difference how the number is presented, haven't you
    >>>>read
    >>>>any of the thread in uk.telecom on this very topic..?! (See "BBC News -
    >>>>New 0203 numbers for Londoners")
    >>>>
    >>>>Ivor

    >>
    >>>If you are saying This <(0207 043 5559> is wrong then I agree with you
    >>>Ivor it should be "020 7043 5559" .
    >>>

    >>
    >> So why did you say I was being *bloody fussy* then?

    >
    >You misread. *I* didn't say that, dexter did.
    >


    Ivor, you're the one who's misread. LOOK AGAIN. It was dexter's post I
    was replying to. Why should you think it was addressed to you? My reply
    was immediately after dexter's comment.

    DF
     
    David Floyd, Jun 4, 2005
    #19
  20. cjd

    John Guest

    In article <>,
    Mathew Curtis <> writes
    >> If you are saying This <(0207 043 5559> is wrong then I agree with you
    >> Ivor it should be "020 7043 5559" .

    >
    >Does it realy matter ?
    >
    >Mat
    >


    Lilliput went to war over whether opening a boiled egg at the pointy or
    round end was right. I am sure the human condition will allow other wars
    on whether opening a boiled egg should be by "bashing and pealing off
    the shell" or "using a spoon and digging in first".

    Become sensible and use the method you prefer. There *IS* no correct
    way.

    --
    John Clark Constipation is the thief of time, but diaorrehia waits
    for no man!!
     
    John, Jun 4, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Silverstrand

    Leadtek Press Release on 7800GTX

    Silverstrand, Jul 7, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    813
    zachig
    Jul 10, 2005
  2. cjd
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    929
  3. cjd
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    1,031
    Ivor Jones
    Jul 30, 2005
  4. Ray Fischer
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    555
    Ray Fischer
    Oct 24, 2010
  5. Wolfgang Weisselberg

    Re: Canon XT - doing full press without wating at half-press

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Oct 25, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    621
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Oct 25, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page