|
|
Our gadgets
Now this is interesting on the Beeb news web site. A bunch of graphs
showing gadget ownership. Phones, CD players and video recorders have all peaked, and are on their way down. DVDs and mobiles are just about plateau-ing. Internet related stuff is still climbing. For how long, I wonder? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12058944 d |
Our gadgets
"Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Now this is interesting on the Beeb news web site. A bunch of graphs showing gadget ownership. Phones, CD players and video recorders have all peaked, and are on their way down. DVDs and mobiles are just about plateau-ing. Internet related stuff is still climbing. For how long, I wonder? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12058944 d Any survey of this sort depends rather on what the question is, and how it's answered. For example, the decline in telephone availability is pointless.If almost everyone has access to a mobile 'phone, then the need for a fixed telephone, which is I presume what the question asked, goes away. Ditto with the question of a video recorder: If they mean tape based, then of course it is in decline, but if they include hard-disc based PVRs, then I suggest that the availability of video recording will possibly be greater now than before. What's sad for me is the decline in CD players, because these will not have been replaced with networked audio players of the Sooloos or Squeezebox kind, but have been largely replaced by portable players, of the iPod kind, or on-line players of the Spotify kind, both playing heavily data-compressed audio. Nevertheless, both at least (especially Spotify) encourage listening to a wider genre of music, so are helping to widen musical appreciation, which has to be for the good. One question not asked was the availability of a fixed installed HiFi system, the sort of Must-Have of the 1970s, even if it was a Curry's rack system. I wonder how many of today's households own such a thing compared with, say, 1980 or 1990. S. |
Our gadgets
In article ,
Serge Auckland wrote: One question not asked was the availability of a fixed installed HiFi system, the sort of Must-Have of the 1970s, even if it was a Curry's rack system. I wonder how many of today's households own such a thing compared with, say, 1980 or 1990. Thank gawd for fashion. I've been looking recently for a half decent sound system for a charity unit I'm involved with - and within a couple of weeks of looking on the local FreeCycle group, got a pair of KEF speakers, a Sony CD player and a NAD amp - all in mint condition. Also a matching MiniDisc unit from the same source as the CD player - but not sure if it'll be of any use for this purpose. -- *Honk if you love peace and quiet* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Our gadgets
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
... "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Now this is interesting on the Beeb news web site. A bunch of graphs showing gadget ownership. Phones, CD players and video recorders have all peaked, and are on their way down. DVDs and mobiles are just about plateau-ing. Internet related stuff is still climbing. For how long, I wonder? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12058944 d Any survey of this sort depends rather on what the question is, and how it's answered. For example, the decline in telephone availability is pointless.If almost everyone has access to a mobile 'phone, then the need for a fixed telephone, which is I presume what the question asked, goes away. I'm not sure I agree with that. A mobile phone is a personal phone, a fixed-line phone belongs to a premises; though I grant that this distinction is more relevant to businesses. Also of course a fixed-line phone is much cheaper to use, and isn't going to fail because the batteries have gone flat or there isn't a signal. I was also surprised that the domestic penetration of phones in 1970 was only 30%, bearing in mind that they had been available in all except the most remote parts of the UK since the 1920s, and in central London since 1880. David. |
Our gadgets
"David Looser" wrote in message ... "Serge Auckland" wrote in message ... "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Now this is interesting on the Beeb news web site. A bunch of graphs showing gadget ownership. Phones, CD players and video recorders have all peaked, and are on their way down. DVDs and mobiles are just about plateau-ing. Internet related stuff is still climbing. For how long, I wonder? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12058944 d Any survey of this sort depends rather on what the question is, and how it's answered. For example, the decline in telephone availability is pointless.If almost everyone has access to a mobile 'phone, then the need for a fixed telephone, which is I presume what the question asked, goes away. I'm not sure I agree with that. A mobile phone is a personal phone, a fixed-line phone belongs to a premises; though I grant that this distinction is more relevant to businesses. Also of course a fixed-line phone is much cheaper to use, and isn't going to fail because the batteries have gone flat or there isn't a signal. I was also surprised that the domestic penetration of phones in 1970 was only 30%, bearing in mind that they had been available in all except the most remote parts of the UK since the 1920s, and in central London since 1880. David. When I was a teenager growing up in Surrey, which even then (late 60s) was a reasonably prosperous area, many of my school friends didn't have telephones at home. If one extends to other less well-off areas, I'm not surprised at the 30% figure overall. As to fixed lines, my son doesn't have a fixed line at home, he and his partner work entirely off mobile communications even for internet. These days, with the right package, it works out pretty much at a fixed cost regardless of usage, so they have never seen the point, as they will need to have mobiles as well as a fixed line, so why bother with the fixed. S. |
Our gadgets
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message
... "David Looser" wrote in message ... "Serge Auckland" wrote in message ... "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Now this is interesting on the Beeb news web site. A bunch of graphs showing gadget ownership. Phones, CD players and video recorders have all peaked, and are on their way down. DVDs and mobiles are just about plateau-ing. Internet related stuff is still climbing. For how long, I wonder? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12058944 d Any survey of this sort depends rather on what the question is, and how it's answered. For example, the decline in telephone availability is pointless.If almost everyone has access to a mobile 'phone, then the need for a fixed telephone, which is I presume what the question asked, goes away. I'm not sure I agree with that. A mobile phone is a personal phone, a fixed-line phone belongs to a premises; though I grant that this distinction is more relevant to businesses. Also of course a fixed-line phone is much cheaper to use, and isn't going to fail because the batteries have gone flat or there isn't a signal. I was also surprised that the domestic penetration of phones in 1970 was only 30%, bearing in mind that they had been available in all except the most remote parts of the UK since the 1920s, and in central London since 1880. David. When I was a teenager growing up in Surrey, which even then (late 60s) was a reasonably prosperous area, many of my school friends didn't have telephones at home. If one extends to other less well-off areas, I'm not surprised at the 30% figure overall. At the same time (or possibly a few years earlier) I was growing up in an only moderately prosperous area of Middlesex, and I was not aware of any of my school friends not having a telephone at home. Though I wasn't basing my surprise on personal reminiscences, but on the fact that the telephone had been available for 90 years, it seems a very slow uptake. As to fixed lines, my son doesn't have a fixed line at home, he and his partner work entirely off mobile communications even for internet. These days, with the right package, it works out pretty much at a fixed cost regardless of usage, so they have never seen the point, as they will need to have mobiles as well as a fixed line, so why bother with the fixed. I accept that there are those who take the view that your son does, but your phrase "then the need for a fixed telephone.... goes away" implied that the need has gone away entirely, which I disagree with. I was talking about phones, but in terms of lines high-speed broadband still requires a physical connection, either wire or fibre. And unless somebody can discover a whole new radio spectrum it's likely to stay that way. David. |
Our gadgets
"Serge Auckland" wrote in message ... "David Looser" wrote in message ... "Serge Auckland" wrote in message ... "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Now this is interesting on the Beeb news web site. A bunch of graphs showing gadget ownership. Phones, CD players and video recorders have all peaked, and are on their way down. DVDs and mobiles are just about plateau-ing. Internet related stuff is still climbing. For how long, I wonder? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12058944 d Any survey of this sort depends rather on what the question is, and how it's answered. For example, the decline in telephone availability is pointless.If almost everyone has access to a mobile 'phone, then the need for a fixed telephone, which is I presume what the question asked, goes away. I'm not sure I agree with that. A mobile phone is a personal phone, a fixed-line phone belongs to a premises; though I grant that this distinction is more relevant to businesses. Also of course a fixed-line phone is much cheaper to use, and isn't going to fail because the batteries have gone flat or there isn't a signal. I was also surprised that the domestic penetration of phones in 1970 was only 30%, bearing in mind that they had been available in all except the most remote parts of the UK since the 1920s, and in central London since 1880. David. When I was a teenager growing up in Surrey, which even then (late 60s) was a reasonably prosperous area, many of my school friends didn't have telephones at home. If one extends to other less well-off areas, I'm not surprised at the 30% figure overall. I remember in 1968 or '69 an American girl landed in the UK to accept a friend of mine's invitation to stay (they had been on the same kibbutz in Israel) and she was astounded to find that he didn't have a phone when she tried to contact him! |
Our gadgets
On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:31:38 -0000, "David Looser"
wrote: I'm not sure I agree with that. A mobile phone is a personal phone, a fixed-line phone belongs to a premises; though I grant that this distinction is more relevant to businesses. Also of course a fixed-line phone is much cheaper to use, and isn't going to fail because the batteries have gone flat or there isn't a signal. You obviously haven't looked at BTs prices recently. £13.29 P.M. standing charge, 10.9p connection charge and 6.4p per minute daytime calls. Most mobile contracts are much cheaper than that. |
Our gadgets
"Bill Taylor" wrote in message
... On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:31:38 -0000, "David Looser" wrote: I'm not sure I agree with that. A mobile phone is a personal phone, a fixed-line phone belongs to a premises; though I grant that this distinction is more relevant to businesses. Also of course a fixed-line phone is much cheaper to use, and isn't going to fail because the batteries have gone flat or there isn't a signal. You obviously haven't looked at BTs prices recently. £13.29 P.M. standing charge, 10.9p connection charge and 6.4p per minute daytime calls. Most mobile contracts are much cheaper than that. Oh no they aren't! David. |
Our gadgets
"Serge Auckland" wrote
in message "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Now this is interesting on the Beeb news web site. A bunch of graphs showing gadget ownership. Phones, CD players and video recorders have all peaked, and are on their way down. DVDs and mobiles are just about plateau-ing. Internet related stuff is still climbing. For how long, I wonder? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12058944 Some of the charts reflect trends in Europe and the UK, but not in the USA. Central heating and washing machines have been at the 90%+ level since or before the 1950s in the US. Even people living at or below the poverty level had them. I surprised by the difference when I lived in Germany in the 1960s. Any survey of this sort depends rather on what the question is, and how it's answered. For example, the decline in telephone availability is pointless.If almost everyone has access to a mobile 'phone, then the need for a fixed telephone, which is I presume what the question asked, goes away. Ditto with the question of a video recorder: If they mean tape based, then of course it is in decline, but if they include hard-disc based PVRs, then I suggest that the availability of video recording will possibly be greater now than before. DVRs are very common in cable boxes that are used in the US. I believe that some US cable-TV networks don't even offer cable interfaces that lack DVR features. What's sad for me is the decline in CD players, because these will not have been replaced with networked audio players of the Sooloos or Squeezebox kind, but have been largely replaced by portable players, of the iPod kind, or on-line players of the Spotify kind, both playing heavily data-compressed audio. Nevertheless, both at least (especially Spotify) encourage listening to a wider genre of music, so are helping to widen musical appreciation, which has to be for the good. The presumption that portable players are necessarily playing lossy-compressed files is false. At least three lossless compression formats are in wide use, and many players (even my tiny Sansa Clip) support plain old .wav files. There is considerable evidence that lossless-compressed audio files play with identical fidelity as uncompressed files. |
Our gadgets
"Keith G" wrote in message
I remember in 1968 or '69 an American girl landed in the UK to accept a friend of mine's invitation to stay (they had been on the same kibbutz in Israel) and she was astounded to find that he didn't have a phone when she tried to contact him! Telephones are another modern convenience that were at or near the 90% penetration level in the US since the 1950s. Automobiles are another modern convenience that have enjoyed far greater market penetration in the US. I believe that we've had more automobiles than people since no later than the 1970s. |
Our gadgets
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Serge Auckland" wrote in message "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Now this is interesting on the Beeb news web site. A bunch of graphs showing gadget ownership. Phones, CD players and video recorders have all peaked, and are on their way down. DVDs and mobiles are just about plateau-ing. Internet related stuff is still climbing. For how long, I wonder? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12058944 Some of the charts reflect trends in Europe and the UK, but not in the USA. Central heating and washing machines have been at the 90%+ level since or before the 1950s in the US. Even people living at or below the poverty level had them. I surprised by the difference when I lived in Germany in the 1960s. Any survey of this sort depends rather on what the question is, and how it's answered. For example, the decline in telephone availability is pointless.If almost everyone has access to a mobile 'phone, then the need for a fixed telephone, which is I presume what the question asked, goes away. Ditto with the question of a video recorder: If they mean tape based, then of course it is in decline, but if they include hard-disc based PVRs, then I suggest that the availability of video recording will possibly be greater now than before. DVRs are very common in cable boxes that are used in the US. I believe that some US cable-TV networks don't even offer cable interfaces that lack DVR features. What's sad for me is the decline in CD players, because these will not have been replaced with networked audio players of the Sooloos or Squeezebox kind, but have been largely replaced by portable players, of the iPod kind, or on-line players of the Spotify kind, both playing heavily data-compressed audio. Nevertheless, both at least (especially Spotify) encourage listening to a wider genre of music, so are helping to widen musical appreciation, which has to be for the good. The presumption that portable players are necessarily playing lossy-compressed files is false. At least three lossless compression formats are in wide use, and many players (even my tiny Sansa Clip) support plain old .wav files. There is considerable evidence that lossless-compressed audio files play with identical fidelity as uncompressed files. I would bet money that the VAST majority of iPods, Sansa Clips etc are playing at whatever is the default bit rate for the device concerned. The people I regularly come into contact with have generally no idea what "bit-rate" means, or the difference between MP3, MP2, AAC, lossless data reduction or WAV. As far as most people are concerned, they use the device as it comes out of the box and NEVER reconfigure any of the settings. Yes, those of us here and on similar fora may find this hard to believe, but in my discussions with many music-literate people at our local radio station, only a couple out of the staff of around 50 had any idea what I was talking about. None of the others had any idea what bit rates were, why it made a difference, and how to change their ripping setting so that they didn't play low-rate MP3s to air. I've no reason to doubt that a portable player can perform equally to a fixed player provided the audio files are to a decent standard. Unfortunately, the Great Public have no knowledge of or interest in maintaining audio standards. S. |
Our gadgets
"Serge Auckland" wrote
in message I would bet money that the VAST majority of iPods, Sansa Clips etc are playing at whatever is the default bit rate for the device concerned. None of them have a default bit rate. What they do is solely determined by the music files they play,which are totally at the discretion of the user. I believe that every device you specifically mentioned suports both lossy and lossless files. The people I regularly come into contact with have generally no idea what "bit-rate" means, or the difference between MP3, MP2, AAC, lossless data reduction or WAV. No argument from me about that! As far as most people are concerned, they use the device as it comes out of the box and NEVER reconfigure any of the settings. There are no settings to configure. Yes, those of us here and on similar fora may find this hard to believe, but in my discussions with many music-literate people at our local radio station, only a couple out of the staff of around 50 had any idea what I was talking about. None of the others had any idea what bit rates were, why it made a difference, and how to change their ripping setting so that they didn't play low-rate MP3s to air. How the technological training of radio station staff has fallen! I've no reason to doubt that a portable player can perform equally to a fixed player provided the audio files are to a decent standard. As a rule these portable players are capable of sonic transparency, given appropriate music files. Some have built-in frequency response variations that can be removed, but the default is for specific variations to be in place. Some may evidence frequency response variations when loaded with common kinds of earphones and headphones. If you back out the default response variations and load them with a resistive load, they are as a rule very good. Unfortunately, the Great Public have no knowledge of or interest in maintaining audio standards. Agreed. However, the general run of settings they don't choose tend toward higher average sound quality than they have ever enjoyed in the past. |
Our gadgets
"Arny Krueger" wrote
Some of the charts reflect trends in Europe and the UK, but not in the USA. Central heating and washing machines have been at the 90%+ level since or before the 1950s in the US. Even people living at or below the poverty level had them. I surprised by the difference when I lived in Germany in the 1960s. That has a lot to do with the after-effects of WW2. The US had built up huge industrial production capacity during the war which could be easily turned to manufacturing consumer goods after 1945. Much of Europe, though, had been devastated by the war. The immediate post-war priority was rebuilding housing and infrastructure. DVRs are very common in cable boxes that are used in the US. I believe that some US cable-TV networks don't even offer cable interfaces that lack DVR features. Similarly here. The Sky HD box is only available with DVR functionality, I beleive the same is true for some cable STBs. For historical reasons cable has never been significant in the UK, most people get their TV over the air, either from a UHF aerial (Freeview) or a satellite dish (Sky or Freesat). David. |
Our gadgets
On 23/12/2010 22:44, David Looser wrote:
"Bill wrote in message ... On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:31:38 -0000, "David Looser" wrote: I'm not sure I agree with that. A mobile phone is a personal phone, a fixed-line phone belongs to a premises; though I grant that this distinction is more relevant to businesses. Also of course a fixed-line phone is much cheaper to use, and isn't going to fail because the batteries have gone flat or there isn't a signal. You obviously haven't looked at BTs prices recently. £13.29 P.M. standing charge, 10.9p connection charge and 6.4p per minute daytime calls. Most mobile contracts are much cheaper than that. Oh no they aren't! Well, they can be - PAYG for example. One of the costs that rarely gets discussed is that to the caller. My brother doesn't have a landline because 'it works out cheaper' . . . Rob |
Our gadgets
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message ... "Serge Auckland" wrote in message I would bet money that the VAST majority of iPods, Sansa Clips etc are playing at whatever is the default bit rate for the device concerned. None of them have a default bit rate. What they do is solely determined by the music files they play,which are totally at the discretion of the user. I believe that every device you specifically mentioned suports both lossy and lossless files. Of course the players will play anything, but the rippers/music managers used to get the music into the device in the first place have a default format, of bit rate and type. For example, iTunes has 128k AAC as the default if you don't change it yourself. Of the others, 128kMP3 is pretty typical. The people I regularly come into contact with have generally no idea what "bit-rate" means, or the difference between MP3, MP2, AAC, lossless data reduction or WAV. No argument from me about that! As far as most people are concerned, they use the device as it comes out of the box and NEVER reconfigure any of the settings. There are no settings to configure. Please see above. The player usually comes with a CD of ripping/management software or referes the user to the appropriate web site. Yes, those of us here and on similar fora may find this hard to believe, but in my discussions with many music-literate people at our local radio station, only a couple out of the staff of around 50 had any idea what I was talking about. None of the others had any idea what bit rates were, why it made a difference, and how to change their ripping setting so that they didn't play low-rate MP3s to air. How the technological training of radio station staff has fallen! I'm not sure that it's changed a lot amongst on-air presenters, it was never that great. What has changed is that Stations once employed several Engineering staff that made sure what went to air was technically sound. In the last 20 years, that's pretty much gone, and a group of stations may share one "Engineer" who's main job is to solder plugs back on headphones. I've no reason to doubt that a portable player can perform equally to a fixed player provided the audio files are to a decent standard. As a rule these portable players are capable of sonic transparency, given appropriate music files. Some have built-in frequency response variations that can be removed, but the default is for specific variations to be in place. Some may evidence frequency response variations when loaded with common kinds of earphones and headphones. If you back out the default response variations and load them with a resistive load, they are as a rule very good. Agreed. It's a sad fact of modern life that music players come set by default with all sorts of undesireable "improvements" that are far best disabled. An iPod is then a very high quality source. I'm amused by those who say an iPod can't be HiFi, then use a valve amplifier....... Unfortunately, the Great Public have no knowledge of or interest in maintaining audio standards. Agreed. However, the general run of settings they don't choose tend toward higher average sound quality than they have ever enjoyed in the past. Agreed again. Season's greetings to you and yours. S. |
Our gadgets
I don't think you can do it that way really. The essence of a gadget is not
just which label its listed under. There is now a fashion element to gadgetry, ie you need the right make of gadget as well as more things that it will do. Where is the mobile phone toilet seat, or the lcd window that doubles as a screen? Brian -- Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________ "Don Pearce" wrote in message ... Now this is interesting on the Beeb news web site. A bunch of graphs showing gadget ownership. Phones, CD players and video recorders have all peaked, and are on their way down. DVDs and mobiles are just about plateau-ing. Internet related stuff is still climbing. For how long, I wonder? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12058944 d |
Our gadgets
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
... Well a lot of people have gone the surround sound home cinema route and the dvd player ever so conveniently plays cds of course. A lot? not that many really. David. |
Our gadgets
In article , David Looser
scribeth thus "Bill Taylor" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:31:38 -0000, "David Looser" wrote: I'm not sure I agree with that. A mobile phone is a personal phone, a fixed-line phone belongs to a premises; though I grant that this distinction is more relevant to businesses. Also of course a fixed-line phone is much cheaper to use, and isn't going to fail because the batteries have gone flat or there isn't a signal. You obviously haven't looked at BTs prices recently. £13.29 P.M. standing charge, 10.9p connection charge and 6.4p per minute daytime calls. Most mobile contracts are much cheaper than that. Oh no they aren't! David. For some the overall package may well be cheaper .. can you explain why my 28 YO daughter and all her mates despite being in permanent residences don't have landline phones anymore?.. An extra 13 or 14 odd quid a month can bring you a lot of extra calling time.. After you have the mobile which for most all young people these days is a must have.. -- Tony Sayer |
Our gadgets
"tony sayer" wrote in message
... In article , David Looser scribeth thus "Bill Taylor" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:31:38 -0000, "David Looser" wrote: I'm not sure I agree with that. A mobile phone is a personal phone, a fixed-line phone belongs to a premises; though I grant that this distinction is more relevant to businesses. Also of course a fixed-line phone is much cheaper to use, and isn't going to fail because the batteries have gone flat or there isn't a signal. You obviously haven't looked at BTs prices recently. £13.29 P.M. standing charge, 10.9p connection charge and 6.4p per minute daytime calls. Most mobile contracts are much cheaper than that. Oh no they aren't! David. For some the overall package may well be cheaper .. can you explain why my 28 YO daughter and all her mates despite being in permanent residences don't have landline phones anymore?.. An extra 13 or 14 odd quid a month can bring you a lot of extra calling time.. After you have the mobile which for most all young people these days is a must have.. -- Please read the line I responded to: "Most mobile contracts are much cheaper than that". Nobody has seen fit to try and justify that claim, merely given me anecdotes about what choices various young adults have made. I don't know your daughter, or her mates, so it's not for me to explain any of the things they might choose to do, but I suspect you have given the answer yourself:- if a mobile is a "must-have" then, unless you make a very large number of calls, it's probably cheaper not to have a landline as well. As I said at the beginning of this sub-thread a mobile is a personal phone, a landline belongs to the premises. Do you think call-centres should hand out mobile phones to all their operators and ditch the landlines? David. |
Our gadgets
In article , David Looser
scribeth thus "tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , David Looser scribeth thus "Bill Taylor" wrote in message ... On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:31:38 -0000, "David Looser" wrote: I'm not sure I agree with that. A mobile phone is a personal phone, a fixed-line phone belongs to a premises; though I grant that this distinction is more relevant to businesses. Also of course a fixed-line phone is much cheaper to use, and isn't going to fail because the batteries have gone flat or there isn't a signal. You obviously haven't looked at BTs prices recently. £13.29 P.M. standing charge, 10.9p connection charge and 6.4p per minute daytime calls. Most mobile contracts are much cheaper than that. Oh no they aren't! David. For some the overall package may well be cheaper .. can you explain why my 28 YO daughter and all her mates despite being in permanent residences don't have landline phones anymore?.. An extra 13 or 14 odd quid a month can bring you a lot of extra calling time.. After you have the mobile which for most all young people these days is a must have.. -- Please read the line I responded to: "Most mobile contracts are much cheaper than that". Nobody has seen fit to try and justify that claim, merely given me anecdotes about what choices various young adults have made. I don't know your daughter, or her mates, so it's not for me to explain any of the things they might choose to do, but I suspect you have given the answer yourself:- if a mobile is a "must-have" then, unless you make a very large number of calls, it's probably cheaper not to have a landline as well. Shes out an about on sales calls all day but even in the office she tends to use the mobile.. As I said at the beginning of this sub-thread a mobile is a personal phone, a landline belongs to the premises. So what's the difference twixt a mobile and a cordless;-?.. Do you think call-centres should hand out mobile phones to all their operators and ditch the landlines? I think you'll find they use a lot of differing routes these days over mobile interconnects and fibre VoIP type connects not simple copper lines.. More than likely they'll need a headset;!.. David. Umm missed a bit there remoteing onto the main PC via a notebook so screen isn't that good. Anyways a lot of people now need mobiles and only keep their BT line for BB but I rather think that if they could do without it then they would. I get around 600 mins a month on the mobile which is more then I need and these days with the call connection and setup charge from VM and I don't think BT are any better, I either use the mobile or the VoIP provider much cheaper than convention Landline and the VoIP service has been excellent:).. As to most mobile contracts you can get SIM only contract even the ones from Voda give 600 mins a month and unlimited texts for 15 a month Inc VAT.. How many inclusive mins do you get on a simple BT phone line only?.. Openreach bloke told me the other month there're only seemingly installing lines now for broadband connections.. -- Tony Sayer |
Our gadgets
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 16:13:59 -0000, "David Looser"
wrote: "tony sayer" wrote in message ... In article , David Looser scribeth thus "Bill Taylor" wrote in message ... On Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:31:38 -0000, "David Looser" wrote: I'm not sure I agree with that. A mobile phone is a personal phone, a fixed-line phone belongs to a premises; though I grant that this distinction is more relevant to businesses. Also of course a fixed-line phone is much cheaper to use, and isn't going to fail because the batteries have gone flat or there isn't a signal. You obviously haven't looked at BTs prices recently. £13.29 P.M. standing charge, 10.9p connection charge and 6.4p per minute daytime calls. Most mobile contracts are much cheaper than that. Oh no they aren't! David. For some the overall package may well be cheaper .. can you explain why my 28 YO daughter and all her mates despite being in permanent residences don't have landline phones anymore?.. An extra 13 or 14 odd quid a month can bring you a lot of extra calling time.. After you have the mobile which for most all young people these days is a must have.. -- Please read the line I responded to: "Most mobile contracts are much cheaper than that". Nobody has seen fit to try and justify that claim,...... You are quite right. I should have used the word "many" instead of "most". But I see no point in getting involved in silly semantic arguments when you have completely missed the point, which is that land lines are expensive things to run, and often more expensive than mobiles. If I didn't want the convenience of a broadband connection it would save me about £400 a year to ditch the landline. Obviously, circumstance alter cases, and businesses making large volumes of calls will have completely different requirements and costs than an individual making a small number of calls. Bill |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:34 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk