home phones via cellular RJ-11

weekilter wrote on [Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:47:34 -0700 (PDT)]:
> On Oct 18, 1:33Â*pm, "ps56k" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> We have the usual landline,
>> and are now contemplating making the switch
>> to Comcast Voice or Vonage.... but this is not about that.
>>
>> I was wondering, if there was any effort
>> to create a cellular basestation to connect to the house RJ-11 wiring ?
>> I don't think the femtocells do this ?
>> Yeah, a lot of folks have dropped their landlines,
>> and are strictly cellular - even at home.
>>
>> But with our various cordless extensions around the house,
>> I don't feel like running upstairs to find my cellphone when I'm tinkering
>> in the basement.
>> SO - as another alternative to the landline migration to cable/internet
>> VoIP,
>> was wondering if there was a celluar basestation that could plug into the
>> house wiring
>> and provide service that way - using the existing home RJ-11 type phones..
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------
>> "If everything seems to be going well,
>> you have obviously overlooked something." - Steven Wright
>
> I've been using the Xlink BT a cellular to traditional phone gateway
> for months. I got mine at Amazon for ~$80. Link:
> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...ink+BT&x=0&y=0
> orhttp://goo.gl/v0bz It will work with any Bluetooth capable
> cellphone. It works great as long as you keep the cellphone near to
> the Xlink base station. The reception can get staticky if you go too
> far from the base station.

How do all these solutions work when the person who owns the cell phone
needs to run to the store?

---

› See More: home phones via cellular RJ-11

On 10/21/2010 10:07 PM, Justin wrote:
> weekilter wrote on [Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:47:34 -0700 (PDT)]:
>> On Oct 18, 1:33 pm, "ps56k"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> We have the usual landline,
>>> and are now contemplating making the switch

[SNIP]
>>
>> I've been using the Xlink BT a cellular to traditional phone gateway
>> for months. I got mine at Amazon for ~$80. Link:
>> http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...ink+BT&x=0&y=0
>> orhttp://goo.gl/v0bz It will work with any Bluetooth capable
>> cellphone. It works great as long as you keep the cellphone near to
>> the Xlink base station. The reception can get staticky if you go too
>> far from the base station.
>
> How do all these solutions work when the person who owns the cell phone
> needs to run to the store?

Give it a little thought, I'm sure that something will come to you. <g>

Most of these links will sync with a number of cell phones (anywhere
from 2 to 6). If the people are home, so is their phone. If no one is
home let the damn cat write a letter or send e-mail. Letting them have
access to the telephone is just going to spoil them!

On Oct 21, 8:07*pm, Justin <[email protected]> wrote:
> weekilter wrote on [Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:47:34 -0700 (PDT)]:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 18, 1:33*pm, "ps56k" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> We have the usual landline,
> >> and are now contemplating making the switch
> >> to Comcast Voice or Vonage.... but this is not about that.
>
> >> I was wondering, if there was any effort
> >> to create a cellular basestation to connect to the house RJ-11 wiring ?
> >> I don't think the femtocells do this ?
> >> Yeah, a lot of folks have dropped their landlines,
> >> and are strictly cellular - even at home.
>
> >> But with our various cordless extensions around the house,
> >> I don't feel like running upstairs to find my cellphone when I'm tinkering
> >> in the basement.
> >> SO - as another alternative to the landline migration to cable/internet
> >> VoIP,
> >> was wondering if there was a celluar basestation that could plug into the
> >> house wiring
> >> and provide service that way - using the existing home RJ-11 type phones..
>
> >> --
> >> ----------------------------------
> >> "If everything seems to be going well,
> >> you have obviously overlooked something." - Steven Wright
>
> > I've been using the Xlink BT a cellular to traditional phone gateway
> > for months. *I got mine at Amazon for ~$80. Link:
> >http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...%3Daps&field-k...
> > orhttp://goo.gl/v0bz*It will work with any Bluetooth capable
> > cellphone. *It works great as long as you keep the cellphone near to
> > the Xlink base station. *The reception can get staticky if you go too
> > far from the base station.
>
> How do all these solutions work when the person who owns the cell phone
> needs to run to the store?

You take your cellphone with you. My cellphone (Nokia 5310) beeps at
me once it's lost the link to the Xlink.

Of course it means that when you leave where the BT link is there's no
phone service there so if people sharing a place with you need to make
calls on regular phones it won't work unless they have synched their
cellphone(s) to the BT link. the Xlink can sync with up to three
different cellphones.

Steve Sobol wrote the following:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>
>
>> You shouldn't have to cut and paste, just click the URL in the message.
>> The quotes keep long URLs from breaking.
>>
>
> YMMV. When I clicked the link I got the trailing quote.
>
> (I'm using MicroPlanet Gravity on Windows Vista SP2)
>

I use Thunderbird for newsgroups and Firefox for browsing.
The link worked as it was written because Tbird stripped the leading and
trailing quotes.



--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
In the original Orange County. Est. 1683
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:30:31 -0700, Steve Sobol <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>
>> >YMMV. When I clicked the link I got the trailing quote.
>> >
>> >(I'm using MicroPlanet Gravity on Windows Vista SP2)
>>
>> The < and > brackets work universally, I'm told.
>
>
>Yes, use of < and > is a better bet.


better but not always, some news readers wrap long URLs and get
confused.

Agent gladly disposes of the quotes, not considering them part or a URL
reference. Of course the standard URL link has quotes.

href="http://some.network/file.html"

One thing that has always worked for me is the url sans quotes on a
single line. If long, on another line post a tinyurl for those with
wrapping issues.

gerry

In article <[email protected]>, gerry
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >Yes, use of < and > is a better bet.
>
> better but not always, some news readers wrap long URLs and get
> confused.

then they're broken. get something that works properly.

On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 15:01:41 -0400, gerry <[email protected]>
wrote:

>[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
>On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:30:31 -0700, Steve Sobol <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>[email protected] says...
>>
>>> >YMMV. When I clicked the link I got the trailing quote.
>>> >
>>> >(I'm using MicroPlanet Gravity on Windows Vista SP2)
>>>
>>> The < and > brackets work universally, I'm told.
>>
>>
>>Yes, use of < and > is a better bet.
>
>
>better but not always, some news readers wrap long URLs and get
>confused.

Which newsreader gets confused by URLs enclosed in < and > characters?

>Agent gladly disposes of the quotes, not considering them part or a URL
>reference. Of course the standard URL link has quotes.
>
>href="http://some.network/file.html"

No, that's a bit of HTML and has nothing to do with Usenet.

--
Paul Miner

On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 03:51:48 +0430, "Peter Pan"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Paul Miner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 15:01:41 -0400, gerry <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
>>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:30:31 -0700, Steve Sobol <[email protected]>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>[email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>>> >YMMV. When I clicked the link I got the trailing quote.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >(I'm using MicroPlanet Gravity on Windows Vista SP2)
>>>>>
>>>>> The < and > brackets work universally, I'm told.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, use of < and > is a better bet.
>>>
>>>
>>>better but not always, some news readers wrap long URLs and get
>>>confused.
>>
>> Which newsreader gets confused by URLs enclosed in < and > characters?
>>
>>>Agent gladly disposes of the quotes, not considering them part or a URL
>>>reference. Of course the standard URL link has quotes.
>>>
>>>href="http://some.network/file.html"
>>
>> No, that's a bit of HTML and has nothing to do with Usenet.
>>
>> --
>> Paul Miner
>
>
>far as i know, while the <> signs usually work, google groups ignores them
>and breaks url's... problem seems to also happen when someone replies and
>the url is in the reply....

Google Groups is an abomination though, so I don't worry too much
about it. Many people simply filter posts from there.

--
Paul Miner

"Paul Miner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 15:01:41 -0400, gerry <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:30:31 -0700, Steve Sobol <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>[email protected] says...
>>>
>>>> >YMMV. When I clicked the link I got the trailing quote.
>>>> >
>>>> >(I'm using MicroPlanet Gravity on Windows Vista SP2)
>>>>
>>>> The < and > brackets work universally, I'm told.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, use of < and > is a better bet.
>>
>>
>>better but not always, some news readers wrap long URLs and get
>>confused.
>
> Which newsreader gets confused by URLs enclosed in < and > characters?
>
>>Agent gladly disposes of the quotes, not considering them part or a URL
>>reference. Of course the standard URL link has quotes.
>>
>>href="http://some.network/file.html"
>
> No, that's a bit of HTML and has nothing to do with Usenet.
>
> --
> Paul Miner


far as i know, while the <> signs usually work, google groups ignores them
and breaks url's... problem seems to also happen when someone replies and
the url is in the reply....

"Paul Miner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 03:51:48 +0430, "Peter Pan"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul Miner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 15:01:41 -0400, gerry <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>[original post is likely clipped to save bandwidth]
>>>>On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:30:31 -0700, Steve Sobol <[email protected]>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>>[email protected] says...
>>>>>
>>>>>> >YMMV. When I clicked the link I got the trailing quote.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >(I'm using MicroPlanet Gravity on Windows Vista SP2)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The < and > brackets work universally, I'm told.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, use of < and > is a better bet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>better but not always, some news readers wrap long URLs and get
>>>>confused.
>>>
>>> Which newsreader gets confused by URLs enclosed in < and > characters?
>>>
>>>>Agent gladly disposes of the quotes, not considering them part or a URL
>>>>reference. Of course the standard URL link has quotes.
>>>>
>>>>href="http://some.network/file.html"
>>>
>>> No, that's a bit of HTML and has nothing to do with Usenet.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Paul Miner
>>
>>
>>far as i know, while the <> signs usually work, google groups ignores them
>>and breaks url's... problem seems to also happen when someone replies and
>>the url is in the reply....
>
> Google Groups is an abomination though, so I don't worry too much
> about it. Many people simply filter posts from there.
>
> --
> Paul Miner

yeah, unfortunately, if someone replies to a post via google groups in a
thread, that broken link is perpetuated, from then on, in every reply which
includes the first reply, no matter what... point was, are there any
NEWSREADERS that don't understand <>? I don't know of any newsreaders that
don't honor them, nor email programs that don't honor them... just some
isp's/google groups that ignore/trash em


funny thing is, ever play with something like tinyurl? like a wet dream,
google can screw them up too
(link is http://tinyurl.com/ but google deletes the space before the http
too)