Re: analog sunset & 911 access

Todd Allcock

At 15 May 2008 16:44:38 +0000 Larry wrote:

> > Can Skype be trained to report your Skype-in number as the CID number
> > on forwarded calls? If so, that could be your "Circle" number and
> > they'd all be free.
>
>
> One of Skype's GREATEST ASSETS is its inability to report your telephone
> number you don't have to anyone...cops, Homeland Security, Council On
> Foreign Relations, FBI, Illuminati, the spammers...

So, in a word, "No." I get that it's convenient to Be anonymous, but it'd
be equally convenient to have a choice. Grandcentral, for example allows
you to select whether you want the CID on forwarded calls to display the
caller being forwarded (if you want to know who's calling) or the GC number
itself (if you want those calls to be a "free" circle/fave.)

So, if you're willing to give up caller ID, you can make any circle/fave
plan an unlimited free incoming plan By simply giving out your GC number
instead of your cellphone number.


> Nope....Skype in calls are forwarded through Skype Out so they all come
up
> with the number 000-123-4567, which I haven't tried to put into My
Circle,
> yet.

T-Mo won't accept "000" as a valid area code as a "fave," so you get the
worst of both worlds forwarding Skype- you don't now who's calling AND you
can't leverage your circle/fave plan.


> Every Skyper has the same Caller ID...(c;


I knew that was the default behavior- I just wondered if you could override
it to your advantage...

Larry

Todd Allcock <> wrote in
news:tr%Wj.162$:

> I knew that was the default behavior- I just wondered if you could
> override it to your advantage.

I guess not. I've still not figured out what all the free toys will do.

I'm just curious and this isn't any kind of jab, but why are you so anti-
Skype, which is 95% free? You come across as really hating it for some
reason. I always find it hard to trash free stuff....

Todd Allcock

At 16 May 2008 04:28:02 +0000 Larry wrote:

> I'm just curious and this isn't any kind of jab, but why are you so anti-
> Skype, which is 95% free? You come across as really hating it for some
> reason. I always find it hard to trash free stuff....


I'm not anti-Skype. As I've said, I use it for certain things- video calls
to the kids when I or my wife travel, for VoIP calls on "VoIP-hostile" WiFi
networks (due to it's ability o sniff out open ports) etc.

I _AM_, however, anti-Fanboy. Replace "Skype" with "iPhone" an your posts
read just like Oxford's or Vic's. Skype is a useful enough tool, but
you've "suggested" it many times where it simply doesn't apply to the
situation. If someone asks about a cheap cellphone plan, you suggest Skype
on a portable device- if someone specifically asks about a competing service,
you suggest they use Skype instead. I swear if someone posted they were
hungry, you'd suggest they grab two slices of bread with a thick slab of
Skype in the middle.

You're so very quick to point out the flaws in "sellphone" plans, or tell
all of us how overpriced something is- until it's Skype. If someone points
out that the they're the ONLY VoIP with a "connection fee," you'll tell us
it's "only four cents" and wander off into a Cute Story (tm) about how you
and a goat-herding friend in Outer Mongolia chatted for two hours yesterday
for free. If a cellphone company added a four-cent connection fee to any
calls, however, you'd be calling for the CEO's head on a pike!

Point out that international calls are 40-50% higher on Skype vs. other
VoIPs, you'll say how cheap they are vs. AT&T, yet when someone ELSE points
out Vonage or whoever is cheaper than AT&T you'll tell them how Skype is
only $x/month vs. Vonage's $y.



So, do I hate Skype? Not at all- on the plus side, Skype's free services
are fine, and the software works well, and their unlimited plans are
reasonably priced.

On the downside, their international rates are higher than their competitors,
often higher than just using a calling card or dial-around service. Their
system is non-standard, requiring either a PC to run, a proprietary phone,
or their software to be installed on a portable device. They aren't E911-
compliant (and I STILL haven't figured out how they offer US phone numbers
without being forced to be E911 compliant.)

So, for example, when I said Skype is unsuitable (for me) for landline
replacement because it can't run on my RJ-11 jacks without a PC running
24/7 and because it lacked E911, you gave the typical Oxford-like Fanboy
response- shove your favorite product/service down my throat anyway, and
tell me to ignore it's shortcomings I specifically objected to (i.e. don't
use my home wiring/home phones, and who needs 911 anyway when you already
have cellphones, etc.)

Does that answer your question?

Well, time for breakfast. Should I have my Skype poached, fried or
scrambled, Lar?

George

Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>
> Does that answer your question?
>
> Well, time for breakfast. Should I have my Skype poached, fried or
> scrambled, Lar?
>
>

Well said and I agree.

Dennis Ferguson

On 2008-05-16, Todd Allcock <> wrote:
> or their software to be installed on a portable device. They aren't E911-
> compliant (and I STILL haven't figured out how they offer US phone numbers
> without being forced to be E911 compliant.)

I haven't figured that out either, but I it is somehow related to
them not allowing the US phone numbers to be used for caller ID
on outbound calls even though they're fine with you instead using
any overseas SkypeIn number you have for caller ID on calls to US
phones.

Dennis Ferguson

Todd Allcock

"Dennis Ferguson" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On 2008-05-16, Todd Allcock <> wrote:
>> or their software to be installed on a portable device. They aren't E911-
>> compliant (and I STILL haven't figured out how they offer US phone
>> numbers
>> without being forced to be E911 compliant.)
>
> I haven't figured that out either, but I it is somehow related to
> them not allowing the US phone numbers to be used for caller ID
> on outbound calls even though they're fine with you instead using
> any overseas SkypeIn number you have for caller ID on calls to US
> phones.

I wondered if it has to do with where they're located (Luxemborg, or the
Duchy of Grand Fenwick or whatever.) I need to ask Bruce Nicklin, the
Voicestick Veep about that on the dslreports forums- he'd rather (like many
VoIP providers) to offer 911 as an optional service, since he claims it
costs them about a buck a month per line. His lawyers can probably explain
why Skype is exempt, but Vonage, Voicestick, et al, aren't.

Larry

"Todd Allcock" <> wrote in
news:RSmXj.217$:

> I wondered if it has to do with where they're located (Luxemborg, or
> the Duchy of Grand Fenwick or whatever.) I need to ask Bruce Nicklin,
> the Voicestick Veep about that on the dslreports forums- he'd rather
> (like many VoIP providers) to offer 911 as an optional service, since
> he claims it costs them about a buck a month per line. His lawyers
> can probably explain why Skype is exempt, but Vonage, Voicestick, et
> al, aren't.
>
>
>
>
>

Skype is in Luxembourg....for tax purposes. They are English, mostly, but
BT and taxes ran them out of that country.

It's why every time you dial out you must dial country code, area, number
completely.

(By the way, forgetting +1 for USA and dialing our 843 area code first gets
you +84 35551212 (or whatever number you dialed without +1). +84 is
Vietnam and I'd like to report Skype dials phones in Vietnam JUST FINE!)...
(c;

My apologies to all those startled Vietnamese people I've gotten out of bed
to answer their phones....

Ness-Net

"Todd Allcock" <> wrote in message news:gxgXj.1230$...
>
> I _AM_, however, anti-Fanboy. Replace "Skype" with "iPhone" an your posts
> read just like Oxford's or Vic's.

Question (or consensus)...

Is Vic = Oxford, toned down or maybe back on his meds?
Seems to be the same message, just a little bit more lucid.
Certainly not as blindly rabid.

Or, did Oxford actually go away - to be replaced by Vic...?
Nutboy Oxford seemed to be from Minneapolis, Comcast if I remember.
Vic seems to be on Charter down south somewhere... (Smyrna, GA?)

danny burstein

In <Xns9AA0B84E48FF6noonehomecom@208.49.80.253> Larry <> writes:

>Skype is in Luxembourg....for tax purposes. They are English, mostly, but
>BT and taxes ran them out of that country.

Can they still pull that off given ebay purchased them?

>It's why every time you dial out you must dial country code, area, number
>completely.

>(By the way, forgetting +1 for USA and dialing our 843 area code first gets
>you +84 35551212 (or whatever number you dialed without +1). +84 is
>Vietnam and I'd like to report Skype dials phones in Vietnam JUST FINE!)...
>(c;

Just wondering... does skype interconnect to
the Cuban, North Korean, and PSTNs ("regular phones")
in the other countries the US pretends don't exist?

Anyone know? Thanks
>My apologies to all those startled Vietnamese people I've gotten out of bed
>to answer their phones....

--
__________________________________________________ ___
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key

[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

Todd Allcock

At 16 May 2008 15:12:30 -0700 Ness-Net wrote:

> > I _AM_, however, anti-Fanboy. Replace "Skype" with "iPhone" an your
posts
> > read just like Oxford's or Vic's.
>
> Question (or consensus)...
>
> Is Vic = Oxford, toned down or maybe back on his meds?
> Seems to be the same message, just a little bit more lucid.
> Certainly not as blindly rabid.
>
> Or, did Oxford actually go away - to be replaced by Vic...?
> Nutboy Oxford seemed to be from Minneapolis, Comcast if I remember.
> Vic seems to be on Charter down south somewhere... (Smyrna, GA?)

I've always worked on the assumption that Ox and Vic aren't the same guy.
Besides the geophraphical difference, while Oxford did change nyms often,
he never actually replied to himself to pretend he was someone else
supporting his crazed rantings, while Vic HAS replied to Oxford's posts
before Ox disappeared.


Vic is certainly a fanboy, but is a lot more reasonable than Oxford ever was.
He has even, on rare occasions, taken issue with some of the iPhone's flaws.
Vic seems to Believe that the iPhone is an amazing device that can still
be improved upon (which I have no quarrel with. It IS an amazing chunk of
silicon, IMO.) Oxford, on the other hand, treated it as if were created by
the hand of God (or Jobs- same thing) and any flaw was somehow actually an
advantage ("flash eats batteries") and we mere mortals were simply unable
to comprehend the "mysterious ways" in which it's creator worked!
Vic is actually fun to have around and posts the occasional nugget of
interesting info among his PR fluff pieces. Oxford was just a delusional
waste of bandwidth.

Of course, if the "Vic=a relocated Oxford on meds" theory is true, let's
hope he doesn't let his Blue Cross payments lapse! ;-)