Hello Andeddu!

** On Wednesday 07.07.21 - 17:17, Andeddu wrote to Arelor:

A> I don't know how many minutes I have in my contract for
A> phone calls... possibly only 200-300 minutes, but I have
A> unlimited data so I tend to just use 4G for everything even
A> when I have access to a WiFi connection.

That's an interesting reversal. I've never heard of a provider
offering unlimited 4G while restricting call minutes. Every
provider/service that I've encountered treats data as a
premium. What company are you with?
--
../|ug

--- OpenXP 5.0.50
* Origin: Ogg's Dovenet Point (723:320/1.9)
� Synchronet � CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Re: KICQ as an "Old New I
By: Nightfox to Andeddu on Wed Jul 07 2021 08:58 am

> An> Either way, I think smart phones are responsible for killing off
> An> traditional IM clients such as MSN.
>
> I don't see why they couldn't coexist. Traditional IM clients had apps for
> smartphones, so they could be used both on a desktop/laptop and a
> smartphone. These days, I've seen some instances where smartphone text
> messages are available on a PC/laptop (I think Apple does that with their
> iPhone and Mac OS), so it seems it has come full circle. The usefulness of
> being able to communicate on a PC/laptop is still there. I also think it
> would be useful to be able to communicate with someone without sharing your
> phone number.
>
> Nightfox

I don't disagree at all, I think there is space for something like that.
There's no reason that you couldn't have an IM client that allows you to create
a unique ID which can be used via the internet on any suitable device such as a
smartphone, PC, laptop or tablet. Apple has iMessage which allows users to
contact each other using any of their devices. I often start a conversation on
my smartphone and, once I get home, I continue the conversation over my iPad...
I don't have a MacBook or iMac but either device would also be compatible.
Something totally third-party which could be used on a device of any brand
would be pretty great though. Someone should make that happen.

---
■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!

Re: Re: KICQ as an "Old New I
By: Nightfox to Andeddu on Wed Jul 07 2021 04:17 pm

> An> Most contacts I see now have huge data or unlimited data plans and very
> An> limited text message and call time. The way I see it is that text
> An> messaging and phone calls are so 2008 and we've moved on since then.
>
> Sometimes a phone call is nice though. You can't replace the nuance you get
> with hearing someone's voice.
>
> Nightfox

Yeah, I do like old fashioned phone calls also but most of them are through
applications such as WhatsApp or Skype. That's what I meant by us moving on
through technology. I still try to use up my meagre minutes each month just to
make the most of my contract.

---
■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!

Re: Re: KICQ as an "Old New I
By: MRO to Andeddu on Wed Jul 07 2021 10:06 pm

> thats very strange for them to limit calls and txting.
> why would they even do that if they provide unlimited data?

Well most of the highly popular contracts in the UK offer unlimited data but
some of them, such as mine, don't offer unlimited minutes or SMS. Some do but
you would have to pay extra, probably another 5-10 dollars per month. As SMS
isn't really used much over here there is no real need for it. Pretty much
everything can be done via apps anyway... WhatsApp do audio and video
conference calls along with large group calls and such -- I think people just
get comfortable with the app they're on and end up using it for everything.

---
■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!

Re: Re: KICQ as an "Old New I
By: Arelor to Andeddu on Thu Jul 08 2021 06:22 am

> > I don't think that's a problem with 99% of people though because 4G
> > coverage is so good now and
> > you're at home you should have a decent WiFi connection. For the people
> > who are out in the stick
> > and are unable to sustain a conference call, a traditional phone call
> > would be far more
> > appropriate.
>
> That is a very firstworldler-like declaration to make.
>
> A lot of people on this ball of mud we call Earth does not even have a data
> plan at all. They just
> can't afford it. I have heard a lot of people in India has smartphones
> without dataplans at all and
> they get their Internet fix using public wifis or whatever.
>
> According to the GSMA State of Mobile Internet Connectivity report, as much
> as 40% of the planet's
> population will still be digitally isolated by 2025.
>
> You don't have to be very far off to be out of proper mobile network
> coverage though. If I drive
> for half an hour away of the main city of my province, the quality of the
> connectivity drops very
> sharply.
>
> I am a liiitle bit touchy with this subject because I have noticed a very
> disturbing pattern when
> rolling down technologies like these:
>
> * Technology is first deployed, availability is insufficient, and everybody
> thinks it is not "quite
> there".
>
> * Technology becomes widely available in high density population areas.
> Inhabitants in high
> population areas think the technology is great.
>
> * Inhabitants of densely populated areas claim the tech is ready and
> whidespread (because it is for
> them). The technology starts being deployed in low-density inhabited areas
> at snail pace.
>
> * Inhabitants of densely populated areas start pushing for sociological
> changes that surround the
> new technology assuming it is widespread. For example, they try to make
> Internet access mandatory
> for certain tasks that used to be doable over a phone line.
>
> * When inhabitants of places where this technology is not deployed at all
> complain, city slickers
> counter with some statement which is true if you happen to live in New York.
> "How come you don't
> have affordable Internet! Stop complaining and get an ADSL subscription! I
> have one and it is
> cheap! Get on with the times man, it is 2005 already!"
>
> For a New Yorker it might seem that 99% of people won't have trouble
> adopting the tech, but believe
> me, this is an skewed assumption.

I guess roll outs re tech happen at a different pace depending on which
continent, country and region you reside. In most dense cities and towns in the
UK, the 4G network is robust and can handle 720p/1080p video streams and
confernece calls with no issue. Even rural villages appear to have strong 4G
signals and are able to sustain all of the above. I understand that it's not
nice leaving people behind or forcing people to move on to newer technologies
if they're happy with what they've got... but that's what progress is all
about. I think, especially with COVID, we are moving very quickly down the
technological path and most people are starting to grasp now that this is the
future -- people are going to work from home remotely and sometimes children
are going to be taught via virtual class rooms and court trials are going to be
handled through a virtual court. We are becoming highly dependent on the
internet and I cannot see things changing post-COVID.

---
■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!

Re: Re: KICQ as an "Old New I
By: Arelor to MRO on Thu Jul 08 2021 06:31 am

> Re: Re: KICQ as an "Old New I
> By: MRO to Andeddu on Wed Jul 07 2021 10:06 pm
>
> > Re: Re: KICQ as an "Old New I
> > By: Andeddu to MRO on Wed Jul 07 2021 05:19 pm
>
> > > Re: Re: KICQ as an "Old New I
> > > By: MRO to Andeddu on Mon Jul 05 2021 09:28 am
>
> > > > that's so fucking backwards. you shouldnt have a limited amount of
> > > > txt msgs.
>
> > > Most contacts I see now have huge data or unlimited data plans and
> > > very limited text message
> > > call time. The way I see it is that text messaging and phone calls are
> > > so 2008 and we've move
> > > on since then.
>
> > thats very strange for them to limit calls and txting.
> > why would they even do that if they provide unlimited data?
>
> I think it is because they want to sell SMS plans to the enterprise segment.
>
> Enterprise in Spain consumes SMS plans like crazy. They do for everything
> from banking to
> marketing. There is an study that SMS are much more likely to be read, and -
> very important - are
> much more likely to reach the recipient on time, because not everybody has
> access to a
> low-latency-high-bandwidth mobile network 24/7/365, but much more people has
> access to a network
> which is at least SMS capable.
>

I very much agree with this. Looking at my SMS inbox, 90% of what's in there is
from businesses such as banks, postal services, network carriers and government
organisations.

---
■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!

Re: Re: KICQ as an "Old New I
By: Andeddu to MRO on Sat Jul 10 2021 08:54 pm

> Re: Re: KICQ as an "Old New I
> By: MRO to Andeddu on Wed Jul 07 2021 10:06 pm
>
> > thats very strange for them to limit calls and txting.
> > why would they even do that if they provide unlimited data?
>
> Well most of the highly popular contracts in the UK offer unlimited data but
> some of them, such as mine, don't offer unlimited minutes or SMS. Some do
> but you would have to pay extra, probably another 5-10 dollars per month. As
> SMS isn't really used much over here there is no real need for it. Pretty
> much everything can be done via apps anyway... WhatsApp do audio and video
> conference calls along with large group calls and such -- I think people
> just get comfortable with the app they're on and end up using it for
> everything.

it just seems like you guys are doing a work around, but acting like you are ahead of the rest of the world and innovative.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: KICQ as an "Old New I
By: Andeddu to Arelor on Sat Jul 10 2021 09:06 pm

> I guess roll outs re tech happen at a different pace depending on which continent, country and
> region you reside. In most dense cities and towns in the UK, the 4G network is robust and can
> handle 720p/1080p video streams and confernece calls with no issue. Even rural villages appear t
> have strong 4G signals and are able to sustain all of the above. I understand that it's not nice
> leaving people behind or forcing people to move on to newer technologies if they're happy with w
> they've got... but that's what progress is all about. I think, especially with COVID, we are mov
> very quickly down the technological path and most people are starting to grasp now that this is
> future -- people are going to work from home remotely and sometimes children are going to be tau
> via virtual class rooms and court trials are going to be handled through a virtual court. We are
> becoming highly dependent on the internet and I cannot see things changing post-COVID.
>

The problem is when they try to sell you a *something* that happens to be a non-working product,
you declare it is a non-working product and that you want your old working product back, and what
you get is "that's what progress is all about."

"Update yourself man, banking over mobile applications is the future!"

I am fine with it being the future, but if the mobile platform is failing more often than not I
want to be able to do my banking over a regular web browser. It sucks when they remove a product
that used to work and replace it by something that does not.

Here is this, my old home ISP used to run a Wimax nerwork for rural settlements that was quite ok.
One day the shut it down and told every customer to switch over to a home 4G plan. The only problem
was, the reason why people had signed up for the Wimax plans instead of a 4G one was precisely
because mobile plans in this area dare unstable, suffer from data caps, and place customers behind
massive CG-NATs. The ISP tried to convince everybody that moving to 4G was a better more modern
system. "The future" and "getting on with the times."

What happened is people switched over to ANOTHER ISP that still offered Wimax.

I suspect it is part of this trend of having end users be the beta testers of your technology. They
don't sell you working solutions anymore, they sell you half-baked ones and the promise that it
will work tomorrow.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Hello Arelor!

** On Monday 05.07.21 - 03:07, Arelor wrote to Andeddu:

A> The problem with video and voice calls is that they require
A> you to have a proper data plan and a provider able to
A> sustain the call. My father tried with Whatsapp videocalls
A> once but they didn't work well at all. Similar thing with
A> voice calls.

A> It sucks a lot because many people will try to initiate a
A> videocall to you, and the whole thing will fail because the
A> ISP can't sustain it, and the initiator is often too stupid
A> or mean to switch to regular phone call - which works
A> perfectly fine.

I know people who make use of IP calls all the time, but only
when there is free wifi around. The libraries and several
chain-stores in the area offer free wifi.

I accidentally triggered a voice call with Telegram not long
ago when my Balckberry was connected to my shop's wifi. But
for the 15secs of "oops, sorry" exchange, the quality was
actually pretty good.

A> I have an unlimited phone plan. I can phone as much people
A> I want as often I want and for how long as I want and it
A> won't cost me an extra dime. I have no need for IP calls
A> myself.

Same here.. but I don't even use the phone as a phone at all!
I'm signed up primarily for the data plan that the monthly fee
of both voice+data provides.

--- OpenXP 5.0.50
* Origin: Ogg's Dovenet Point (723:320/1.9)
� Synchronet � CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Hello MRO!

** On Wednesday 30.06.21 - 20:54, MRO wrote to Andeddu:

>> IM clients on your phone are the main form of communication
>> now. Where I am from pretty much everyone is on WhatsApp --
>> it's a very good way to keep in

M> the people i know just use facebook, snapchat, instagram or
M> txting. whatsapp isnt that popular with them. i have
M> whatsapp but why would i use it when i can txt a friend
M> instead?

[1] Although something like whatsapp may require a real phone
number to register an account, your real phone number can
remain private. Not so much with the phone supplier's txt
services. [2] Plus.. txt service is completely in the clear.
Not so much with some a messaging app.

Up until recently, I didn't know that some txt services offered
file attachments. So, that's a bonus for just using txt. But
txt is still quite not-private.

--- OpenXP 5.0.50
* Origin: Ogg's Dovenet Point (723:320/1.9)
� Synchronet � CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Re: KICQ as an "Old New I
By: Nightfox to Arelor on Thu Jul 08 2021 01:59 pm

> I think Addieu is in the UK, which is a smaller country, and I could see it
> being a lot easier to ensure 100% cell coverage in a smaller area. But in a
> larger country, I think it could be cost-prohibitive for cell companies to
> maintain enough cell towers to have coverage even outside of the cities.
>
> Nightfox

I've been all over the country from the highlands of Scotland to the London,
Brighton, etc... in the south of England. 4G coverage is generally very good...
obviously there are blackspots in certain extremely rural areas. I am aware
that there are still people opting to use analogue modems because their
addresses are so remote. I began using 4G back in 2013 and I've seen massive
improvements in the infrastructure since then -- by 2018 4G coverage was about
is good as it realistically could be. I have noticed that certain carriers such
as O2 seem to have a poor reception in rural areas though. I am with Three and
the signals are great.

I believe that cheap 5G coverage via Starlink may be the solution for large
geographic regions such as the USA.

---
■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!

Re: unlimited data so..
By: Ogg to Andeddu on Thu Jul 08 2021 06:43 am

> A> I don't know how many minutes I have in my contract for
> A> phone calls... possibly only 200-300 minutes, but I have
> A> unlimited data so I tend to just use 4G for everything even
> A> when I have access to a WiFi connection.
>
> That's an interesting reversal. I've never heard of a provider
> offering unlimited 4G while restricting call minutes. Every
> provider/service that I've encountered treats data as a
> premium. What company are you with?
> --

I am with Three. I subscribed to their "all you can eat" data plan back in 2016
for around 20-25 dollars which had an SMS and call limit but no data limit. I
went with them becuase they promised not to choke my bandwidth if I went above
a certain artifical limit. I can often exceed 25gb of data usage per month and
I have never noticed a decline in quality.

Something like an SMS limit wouldn't really affect people in the UK anyway
becase we don't really use that method of communication -- there are unlimited
SMS data plans but they are known as "bolt-ons" which can be added to an
exisiting contract for a small fee. I presume it's the same in the USA where
carriers can allow you to customise your own contracts... my one is the most
basic because it's just unlimited data and I haven't asked for anything else.

---
■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!

Re: Re: KICQ as an "Old New I
By: MRO to Andeddu on Sat Jul 10 2021 04:07 pm

> it just seems like you guys are doing a work around, but acting like you are
> ahead of the rest of the world and innovative.

But you were talking about it being better and more efficient if the user could
use fewer applications and methods of contacting people rather than more.
WhatsApp is close to perfect because it allows you to do everything -- standard
IMing with an individual or a group, image, video and file distribution, audio
and video chat with one more people, etc... one app to rule them all.

---
■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!

Re: Re: KICQ as an "Old New I
By: Arelor to Andeddu on Sat Jul 10 2021 05:22 pm

> The problem is when they try to sell you a *something* that happens to be a
> non-working product,
> you declare it is a non-working product and that you want your old working
> product back, and what
> you get is "that's what progress is all about."
>
> "Update yourself man, banking over mobile applications is the future!"
>
> I am fine with it being the future, but if the mobile platform is failing
> more often than not I
> want to be able to do my banking over a regular web browser. It sucks when
> they remove a product
> that used to work and replace it by something that does not.
>
> Here is this, my old home ISP used to run a Wimax nerwork for rural
> settlements that was quite ok.
> One day the shut it down and told every customer to switch over to a home 4G
> plan. The only problem
> was, the reason why people had signed up for the Wimax plans instead of a 4G
> one was precisely
> because mobile plans in this area dare unstable, suffer from data caps, and
> place customers behind
> massive CG-NATs. The ISP tried to convince everybody that moving to 4G was a
> better more modern
> system. "The future" and "getting on with the times."
>
> What happened is people switched over to ANOTHER ISP that still offered
> Wimax.
>
> I suspect it is part of this trend of having end users be the beta testers
> of your technology. They
> don't sell you working solutions anymore, they sell you half-baked ones and
> the promise that it
> will work tomorrow.

I understand your gripe and I disagree with ISPs and businesses meddling with
applications and websites people still use because certain technologies are
unavailable to them. The mobile banking app I use is a godsend... I've never
had any issues with it, I can do whatever I want in seconds and don't even have
to type in a password to gain access due to facial recognition -- I remember
when I had to type in codes and use third-party authentication devices.

The problem is that big corporations seem to forget that there are people who
live remotely with no real access to superfast mobile dataplans or even the
internet on some occasions. They'll close down bank branches and all that
becuase they have call centres and mobile banking forgetting that there are
people who depend on face-to-face business. It's all about money in the end and
it probably wouldn't be much of an issue once rural internet coverage is
improved... for instance, if you could receive a strong 4G connection, you
wouldn't have much of a problem moving onto their chosen management/payment
platforms.

---
■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!

Re: Re: KICQ as an "Old New I
By: Andeddu to MRO on Sun Jul 11 2021 01:29 pm

> Re: Re: KICQ as an "Old New I
> By: MRO to Andeddu on Sat Jul 10 2021 04:07 pm
>
> > it just seems like you guys are doing a work around, but acting like you
> > are ahead of the rest of the world and innovative.
>
> But you were talking about it being better and more efficient if the user
> could use fewer applications and methods of contacting people rather than
> more. WhatsApp is close to perfect because it allows you to do everything --
> standard IMing with an individual or a group, image, video and file

that's good. you are allowing facebook to collect your information and your contact's information on all fronts with whatsapp.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Hello Andeddu!

** On Saturday 10.07.21 - 20:45, Andeddu wrote to Nightfox:

A> ..Apple has iMessage
A> which allows users to contact each other using any of their
A> devices. I often start a conversation on my smartphone and,
A> once I get home, I continue the conversation over my
A> iPad... I don't have a MacBook or iMac but either device
A> would also be compatible. Something totally third-party
A> which could be used on a device of any brand would be
A> pretty great though. Someone should make that happen.

Telegram is exactly that. Fully synchronized across devices.
Use it on Android, iPhone, iPad, PC, Linux, MacOS.

https://telegram.org/

Works on 32bit and 64bit devices too.

Some Fidonet echos are linked up with it.
For more info on the Fidonet part, start here:

https://t.me/joinchat/TWCQfOZqwwOmweR1

--- OpenXP 5.0.50
* Origin: Ogg's Dovenet Point (723:320/1.9)
� Synchronet � CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Someone should make that happen..
By: Ogg to Andeddu on Mon Jul 12 2021 07:11 am

> Hello Andeddu!
>
> ** On Saturday 10.07.21 - 20:45, Andeddu wrote to Nightfox:
>
> A> ..Apple has iMessage
> A> which allows users to contact each other using any of their
> A> devices. I often start a conversation on my smartphone and,
> A> once I get home, I continue the conversation over my
> A> iPad... I don't have a MacBook or iMac but either device
> A> would also be compatible. Something totally third-party
> A> which could be used on a device of any brand would be
> A> pretty great though. Someone should make that happen.
>
> Telegram is exactly that. Fully synchronized across devices.
> Use it on Android, iPhone, iPad, PC, Linux, MacOS.
>
> https://telegram.org/
>
> Works on 32bit and 64bit devices too.
>
> Some Fidonet echos are linked up with it.
> For more info on the Fidonet part, start here:
>
> https://t.me/joinchat/TWCQfOZqwwOmweR1

Pretty much that. I find Telegram to be a superior product to Whatsapp if just
because it is true multiplatform and you can use it both from your portable
devices and your workstations without any convoluted process.

And I don't like Telegram that much.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
■ Synchronet ■ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: Someone should make that happen..
By: Arelor to Ogg on Tue Jul 13 2021 04:08 am

> Pretty much that. I find Telegram to be a superior product to Whatsapp if
> just because it is true multiplatform and you can use it both from your
> portable devices and your workstations without any convoluted process.
>
> And I don't like Telegram that much.
>

i prefer telegram over most things. i dont like how google censors the channels, so i have to get the direct version or another one that isnt on the store.
---
■ Synchronet ■ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Hello Andeddu!

** On Sunday 11.07.21 - 13:20, Andeddu wrote to Ogg:

A> I am with Three. I subscribed to their "all you can eat"
A> data plan back in 2016 for around 20-25 dollars which had
A> an SMS and call limit but no data limit. I went with them
A> becuase they promised not to choke my bandwidth if I went
A> above a certain artifical limit. I can often exceed 25gb of
A> data usage per month and I have never noticed a decline in
A> quality.

I like the sound of their "SIM only, Unlimited data" plans.
Compared to here, their product is very cheap.

A> .. my one is the most basic because it's just unlimited
A> data and I haven't asked for anything else.

It's a sweet deal in the UK.

--- OpenXP 5.0.50
* Origin: Ogg's Dovenet Point (723:320/1.9)
� Synchronet � CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Hello Andeddu!

** On Sunday 11.07.21 - 13:11, Andeddu wrote to Nightfox:

A> I believe that cheap 5G coverage via Starlink may be the
A> solution for large geographic regions such as the USA.

Cheap is not a realistic adjective to describe Starlink. :D

I qualified for an initial rollout of the Starlink gear at my
home. But the upfront cost for the equipment was over $600,
and the ongoing monthly was well over $100 too.

There was no assurance that the equipment could be replaced
economically should it sustain weather/electrical damage.
Another $600 would be a big blow.

I dunno.. but maybe being in the rural setting as I am now,
doesn't need all the wizbang of high-speed internet when the
the peace and beauty of the rural life-style is why I prefer
this setting. A simple 4G phone (3G speeds) activated as a
moble hotspot seems to be quite enough and far less expensive
than a Starlink solution.

--- OpenXP 5.0.50
* Origin: Ogg's Dovenet Point (723:320/1.9)
� Synchronet � CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: Re: KICQ as an "Old New I
By: MRO to Andeddu on Mon Jul 12 2021 09:36 am

> that's good. you are allowing facebook to collect your information and your
> contact's information on all fronts with whatsapp.

Well you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you allow big corporations
to consolodate your information in return for convenience, or you're stuck
using seperate programmes for individual needs and requirements.

---
■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!

Re: Someone should make that happen..
By: Ogg to Andeddu on Mon Jul 12 2021 07:11 am

> Telegram is exactly that. Fully synchronized across devices.
> Use it on Android, iPhone, iPad, PC, Linux, MacOS.
>
> https://telegram.org/
>
> Works on 32bit and 64bit devices too.
>
> Some Fidonet echos are linked up with it.
> For more info on the Fidonet part, start here:
>
> https://t.me/joinchat/TWCQfOZqwwOmweR1

I've never really heard much about Telegram before. Checked out the website
there and it looks really decent. Is it popular enough in your country? Some of
the YouTubers I follow have mentioned it before... I hope it picks up traction!

---
■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!

Re: unlimited data so..
By: Ogg to Andeddu on Tue Jul 13 2021 08:47 am

> I like the sound of their "SIM only, Unlimited data" plans.
> Compared to here, their product is very cheap.

I've been SIM only for over 6 years now... I purchase a new phone outright
every 2-3 years and have stuck with the same SIM since the beginning. My iPhone
12 Mini was purchased on Apple Finance though through Barclays due to the 0%
interest offer.

---
■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!

Re: cheap 5G coverage via Starlink
By: Ogg to Andeddu on Tue Jul 13 2021 08:58 am

> Cheap is not a realistic adjective to describe Starlink. :D
>
> I qualified for an initial rollout of the Starlink gear at my
> home. But the upfront cost for the equipment was over $600,
> and the ongoing monthly was well over $100 too.
>
> There was no assurance that the equipment could be replaced
> economically should it sustain weather/electrical damage.
> Another $600 would be a big blow.
>
> I dunno.. but maybe being in the rural setting as I am now,
> doesn't need all the wizbang of high-speed internet when the
> the peace and beauty of the rural life-style is why I prefer
> this setting. A simple 4G phone (3G speeds) activated as a
> moble hotspot seems to be quite enough and far less expensive
> than a Starlink solution.

Perhaps I was mislead when Musk stated that Starlink would provide cheap
internet access to hundreds of millions of people in rural Africa.

I agree, 3G is fine for 720p/540p video and basic web browsing as long as it's
stable.

---
■ Synchronet ■ BBS for Amstrad computer users including CPC, PPC and PCW!

Hello MRO!

** On Tuesday 13.07.21 - 09:34, MRO wrote to Arelor:

M> i prefer telegram over most things. i dont like how google
M> censors the channels, so i have to get the direct version
M> or another one that isnt on the store. -+-

Once it's installed your devices, updates are built-in from the
app and you don't need to look for any other versions. The
telegram.org site has everything you need.

--- OpenXP 5.0.50
* Origin: Ogg's Dovenet Point (723:320/1.9)
� Synchronet � CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP