Alan Bourke wrote:
> John Harvey wrote:
>   
>> Probably no more illegal than SKYPE, which is possibly what is being used.
>>   
>>     
> Skype's only free to another person using Skype. To normal numbers, i.e. 
> using SkypeOut, it isn't free although it's a lot cheaper. This thing 
> claims to be free to from any number to any number within the US and 
> Canada.
No, If you listen to the spiel, it's $40, "which includes your first 
year of service 'free'", and $20 a year thereafter.   At Skypes rates of 
2 cents a minute for non-Skypers, that's 1000 minutes.  I bet they'll 
end up having to raise the rates, if it catches on.   Since the usb jack 
probably costs them about $1, they'll probably just about break even the 
first year, for all but lengthy talkers.

As far as being illegal goes, it's nothing more then using a VOIP with a 
connecter to make it easier to use for non-techs.  No different from 
Skype, or Vonnage, for that matter.  Frankly, if I used voip, I'd rather 
be able to use my existing phone set too, instead of screwing around 
with headphones.

What cracks me up is the statement "and since it goes through your 
phone, instead of your computer, the quality is.."  HUH?  It's not going 
through your computer?  Really?  Why do you have to plug it into your 
USB port, then?  And what happens if the laptop is turned off?  I think 
you  mean "and since it goes through both your phone AND your computer, 
it's a wonder you can hear at all!"  :-)

BTW, put in my vote for "OK for [NF]"


_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to