Vonage calls for broadband only connections

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07...e_line_rental/

Save you having to pay double for unwanted telephone line
as you can do all that with instant messengers, video conferencing,
VoIP and services like skype that don't require analogue telephone
capability.

Bring on LLU and we shall see!!!

Someone out there should be able to provide such services.

"7" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:tFhBe.69332$(E-Mail Removed). uk...
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07...e_line_rental/
>
> Save you having to pay double for unwanted telephone line
> as you can do all that with instant messengers, video conferencing,
> VoIP and services like skype that don't require analogue telephone
> capability.
>
> Bring on LLU and we shall see!!!
>
> Someone out there should be able to provide such services.

I like the quote from BT;
"We are aware that applications providers that don't contribute to the cost
of building and supporting that ever improving broadband network have little
appreciation of the economics involved," said a BT spokesman. "Our
customers, however, do."

In your broadband utopia will LLU be providing, and maintaining, lines for
free or does it only apply to BT?

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 10:02:43 +0100, "Paul Godfrey"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"7" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:tFhBe.69332$(E-Mail Removed) .uk...

>> Bring on LLU and we shall see!!!
>
>In your broadband utopia will LLU be providing, and maintaining, lines for
>free or does it only apply to BT?

Grin. The way people write about LLU, you'd imagine it was a company
setting up in comp to BT and providing its own cables, instead of a
process whereby other companies get access to use BT's circuits but BT
still have to maintain them.

I was under the impression the LLU providers still had to pay BT for
exactly that reason?

If the bit of copper to your house breaks, you pay your LLU provider,
and they pay BT. The difference is, we as customers don't HAVE to go
with BT for normal day to day service, and they no longer have a
monopoly. Why should we all have to pay through the nose for lines
which were laid 30 or 40 years ago?

I should add, I'm trying Vonage at home at it's pretty unreliable in my
experience.

On 14 Jul 2005 05:00:42 -0700, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:

>I was under the impression the LLU providers still had to pay BT for
>exactly that reason?

if you must post via google, please learn how to include some context.
Apparently its not very hard.

>If the bit of copper to your house breaks, you pay your LLU provider,
>and they pay BT.

Indeed.

>The difference is, we as customers don't HAVE to go
>with BT for normal day to day service, and they no longer have a
>monopoly.

In other words, you can now pay someone else to pay BT on your behalf,
presumably with a small markup included to cover the intermediary's
admin costs. This is good because...?

>Why should we all have to pay through the nose for lines
>which were laid 30 or 40 years ago?

I don't understand why you think that lines laid more than 20 years
ago are mysteriously either maintenance-free or free to maintain...

Paul Godfrey wrote:

> "7" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:tFhBe.69332$(E-Mail Removed). uk...
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07...e_line_rental/
>>
>> Save you having to pay double for unwanted telephone line
>> as you can do all that with instant messengers, video conferencing,
>> VoIP and services like skype that don't require analogue telephone
>> capability.
>>
>> Bring on LLU and we shall see!!!
>>
>> Someone out there should be able to provide such services.
>
> I like the quote from BT;
> "We are aware that applications providers that don't contribute to the
> cost of building and supporting that ever improving broadband network have
> little appreciation of the economics involved," said a BT spokesman. "Our
> customers, however, do."
>
> In your broadband utopia will LLU be providing, and maintaining, lines for
> free or does it only apply to BT?


May be BT$ is unfit for the task and better done people
who know better. If it were down to me, I've
already seen better technology and wouldn't use
any of BT$ outdated technology or management approaches.

And yes they are fscked up about "..cost of building and supporting.."
catering to the lowest form of amateur management fruitcakes running
the place and their schemes and because they are clueless
fscktards in marketing and it shows up on everyone's radar
and I wouldn't be seen in the same street with them!

Bring on LLU and we shall see!!

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:30:13 UTC, 7
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> May be BT$ is unfit for the task and better done people
> who know better. If it were down to me, I've
> already seen better technology and wouldn't use
> any of BT$ outdated technology or management approaches.
>
> And yes they are fscked up about "..cost of building and supporting.."
> catering to the lowest form of amateur management fruitcakes running
> the place and their schemes and because they are clueless
> fscktards in marketing and it shows up on everyone's radar
> and I wouldn't be seen in the same street with them!
>
> Bring on LLU and we shall see!!
>
> BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

As articulate as ever, I see.

--
[ 7'ism - a condition by which the sufferer experiences an inability
to give concise answers, express reasoned argument or opinion.
Usually accompanied by silly noises and gestures - incurable, early
euthanasia recommended. ]

Godfrey:
>In your broadband utopia will LLU be providing, and maintaining, lines for
>free or does it only apply to BT?

The LLU provider PAYS BT for the use of the line, just reduced to £80 p.a.
IIRC.
So, in theory at least, they could pass some saving to customers not using
the line for BT voice calls.
Regards,
Martin

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 22:30:13 GMT, 7
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Do you make that noise whenever they pull the strings tight?

--
cerberus