In message <u8rkvp$1n5q$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 14 Jul 2023 14:10:01,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
[]

I think many ISPs see their own provided voice services as a way of making
it harder for you to swap ISP.

Certainly by arranging contracts with different ending dates, and hefty
charges for ending one of them early; I don't know if that was banned by
the line-rental-separate-banning legislation someone told us about, but
PlusNet certainly used it a few years ago. It worked like this:
theoretical high prices for each service, but in practice provided at a discount if you took both from them (like gas and electric "duel fuel discounts" for energy providers - but in this case the discount was many
times, not just a bit off). So if you stopped whichever contract ended
early (by switching it to another supplier), what was left on the other
service contract was now at the full (and previously only theoretical)
charge. And you couldn't terminate _that_ one early on the grounds the
cost had gone up, because it hadn't: you'd agreed that you'd accept the
"duel fuel" discount and that you'd lose it. (Terminating early
_without_ "good reason" involved you in an early termination penalty of
more or less the remaining fee anyway.)

Presumably VoIP transfers, at least to the same provider, will _not_
involve changing number. (Is it possible to change VoIP _provider_ and
retain number, as it is for fobile ones?)

[I just about know my number, after being here about 16 years - and
there are times I'm not entirely sure still!]

Is "short dialling" - where you only have to dial the digits after the
code, if calling someone on the same exchange - still available on VoIP?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The voices of Radio 4 continuity and newsreading have been keeping me right
for as long as I can remember. I can call on a million different information sources, but it doesn't make sense unti I've heard it from Peter, Harriet, Charlotte and the rest.- Eddie Mair in Radio Times 10-16 November 2012

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

In message <u8rkvp$1n5q$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 14 Jul 2023 14:10:01,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
[]

I think many ISPs see their own provided voice services as a way of making >> it harder for you to swap ISP.

Certainly by arranging contracts with different ending dates, and hefty charges for ending one of them early; I don't know if that was banned by
the line-rental-separate-banning legislation someone told us about, but PlusNet certainly used it a few years ago. It worked like this:
theoretical high prices for each service, but in practice provided at a discount if you took both from them (like gas and electric "duel fuel discounts" for energy providers - but in this case the discount was many times, not just a bit off). So if you stopped whichever contract ended
early (by switching it to another supplier), what was left on the other service contract was now at the full (and previously only theoretical) charge. And you couldn't terminate _that_ one early on the grounds the
cost had gone up, because it hadn't: you'd agreed that you'd accept the
"duel fuel" discount and that you'd lose it. (Terminating early
_without_ "good reason" involved you in an early termination penalty of
more or less the remaining fee anyway.)

Presumably VoIP transfers, at least to the same provider, will _not_
involve changing number. (Is it possible to change VoIP _provider_ and
retain number, as it is for fobile ones?)

[I just about know my number, after being here about 16 years - and
there are times I'm not entirely sure still!]

Is "short dialling" - where you only have to dial the digits after the
code, if calling someone on the same exchange - still available on VoIP?

Number portability exists for voip. I’ve moved a number that was originally BT to Sipgate (voip) and then to Andrews and Arnold (voip). The latter
charge me £1.44 per month excluding any call charges, which gives you an indication of the true economic cost of providing such a service.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <u8roc0$23qk$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 14 Jul 2023 15:07:44,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
[]

Number portability exists for voip. I’ve moved a number that was originally >BT to Sipgate (voip) and then to Andrews and Arnold (voip). The latter
charge me £1.44 per month excluding any call charges, which gives you an >indication of the true economic cost of providing such a service.

Interesting; presumably that 1.44 - if as you say it's _ex_cluding call
charges - is the "cost" of maintaining the accounting processes that
keep your number active.

Given some mobile networks (admittedly, fewer and fewer) provide PAYG
contracts for nothing (well, you have to make a call every month or
quarter), it seems a tad high. (OK, those could be a loss leader, but
back in the day when mobile started, PAYG was more or less the default,
and I can't see why the economics should have changed in that respect.
Unless OfCom - or some similar body - are now charging to limit the use
of numbers, but if they are, I'd have thought the PAYG mobiles would
also have a no-use monthly charge.)

A&A aren't known for cheapness, of course - quite the opposite (bit like
Rolls Royce: if you have to ask the price, you can't afford them).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"He who will not reason is a bigot;
he who cannot is a fool;
he who dares not is a slave."
- Sir William Drummond

Above all things, use your mind.
Don't be that bigot, fool, or slave.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <u8te6l$au9t$1@dont-email.me> at Sat, 15 Jul 2023 06:26:29,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
[]

Mobile networks do have a cost to keep your number active - a lot of their >software is licensed on a per user basis. It’s one reason why they have >various methods for getting some money out of you. 1p mobile is a good >example. They started off with no ongoing charge but found it to be >uneconomic. Now you have to top up £10 every 4 months.

[]
There are still no-ongoing-charge SIMs - they have very high per-minute charges, which is fair enough. (ASDA do one, for example - 15p a minute.
I have one.) I think you have to make a call every month or quarter on
them, but that's more to keep the number active (they reserve the right
to discontinue service if you don't use it, though I think they don't
always do so), rather than cost recovery.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

And on the question of authorship, I subscribe to the view that the plays were not in fact written by Shakespeare but by someone of the same name.
- Hugh Bonneville (RT 2014/10/11-17)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

In message <u8roc0$23qk$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 14 Jul 2023 15:07:44,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
[]

Number portability exists for voip. I’ve moved a number that was originally
BT to Sipgate (voip) and then to Andrews and Arnold (voip). The latter
charge me £1.44 per month excluding any call charges, which gives you an
indication of the true economic cost of providing such a service.

Interesting; presumably that 1.44 - if as you say it's _ex_cluding call charges - is the "cost" of maintaining the accounting processes that
keep your number active.

Given some mobile networks (admittedly, fewer and fewer) provide PAYG contracts for nothing (well, you have to make a call every month or
quarter), it seems a tad high. (OK, those could be a loss leader, but
back in the day when mobile started, PAYG was more or less the default,
and I can't see why the economics should have changed in that respect.
Unless OfCom - or some similar body - are now charging to limit the use
of numbers, but if they are, I'd have thought the PAYG mobiles would
also have a no-use monthly charge.)

A&A aren't known for cheapness, of course - quite the opposite (bit like Rolls Royce: if you have to ask the price, you can't afford them).

Mobile networks do have a cost to keep your number active - a lot of their software is licensed on a per user basis. It’s one reason why they have various methods for getting some money out of you. 1p mobile is a good
example. They started off with no ongoing charge but found it to be
uneconomic. Now you have to top up £10 every 4 months.

When mobiles started PAYG was not the default. It was a hefty monthly fee
plus hefty call charges.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

In message <u8te6l$au9t$1@dont-email.me> at Sat, 15 Jul 2023 06:26:29,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
[]

Mobile networks do have a cost to keep your number active - a lot of their >> software is licensed on a per user basis. It’s one reason why they have
various methods for getting some money out of you. 1p mobile is a good
example. They started off with no ongoing charge but found it to be
uneconomic. Now you have to top up £10 every 4 months.

[]
There are still no-ongoing-charge SIMs - they have very high per-minute charges, which is fair enough. (ASDA do one, for example - 15p a minute.
I have one.) I think you have to make a call every month or quarter on
them, but that's more to keep the number active (they reserve the right
to discontinue service if you don't use it, though I think they don't
always do so), rather than cost recovery.

I’m not disputing that such sims exist, they make the economics work by
high charges to those that do make calls. But one day ASDA might decide the whole thing isn’t worth the effort.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)