On 2023-02-24 00:38, Kees Nuyt wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 14:36:27 -0500, nospam
> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>> how far away?
>>>
>>> One meter.
>>
>> something is very wrong. at that distance, it should *not*
>> drop out at all.
>
> Drop outs can occur when the input stage of the receiver is
> overloaded by strong radio signals, for example close to a GSM
> antenna mast or non-compliant WiFi.

It happens to me even when walking in the woods with the in-ear-things.
Few times, but it does happen. In this case, I may loose one ear or the
other for a second or two, while the other one keeps working.

With my good quality earphones, it happens more when I am on an
apartment, where there can be forty wifis in reach. But it also happens
on a detached home. But there my watching youtube seat is near to the
wifi AP.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2023-02-24 23:41, nospam wrote:
> In article <1jpncjx4he.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> We are talking alternatives to SMS, which use the phone number. I am not
>> interested in alternatives that are not related to a phone or do not use
>> the phone number as identification.
>
> you might not, but most people want alternatives that are *not* tied to
> a phone number or a particular carrier.

Off-topic.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2023-02-24 23:19, David Higton wrote:
> In message <240220231620515376%nospam@nospam.invalid>
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <91cbec7b5a.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM>, David Higton
>> <dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>> The signals you have to worry about are normally not the wanted ones,
>>>>> they're the unwanted ones at different frequencies. The overloading
>>>>> can make it impossible to receive the wanted signals without error.
>>>>
>>>> straw man.
>>>>
>>>> intentional jamming is not the issue and highly unusual anyway.
>>>
>>> You're the first person to talk about intentional jamming. Not me.
>>
>> *your* quote above is clear, particularly this part:
>> 'can make it impossible to receive the wanted signals'
>>
>> that sure sounds like jamming.
>
> Think of other stuff that a receiver is subjected to in a normal
> environment. A Bluetooth receiver is also going to be receiving (and
> trying to reject) wifi, mobile phones, DECT phones, all sorts of remote
> controls (garage door opener, intruder alarm), and even a microwave oven.
> Bluetooth signals would be, to it, the wanted signals. The rest are not
> intentional jamming, they're simply there.

Absolutely correct.

Often cheap BT things. Even my 50€ earphones.

And the BT things are running on tiny batteries. I mention this because
the only devices that work well for me have been the hands free devices
in cars. Several ones. They have the car battery for power, direct or
via USB charger.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2023-02-23 12:57, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2023-02-17 19:20, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>
>> The link I have is in Spanish, but I'll translate it using DeepL.
>> Someone else can find an English language link.
>>
>> <https://bandaancha.eu/articulos/vodafone-finiquita-mensajes-chat-rcs-10475>
>>
>> Vodafone ends RCS chat messages and MMS that enhanced SMS with
>> pictures and video
>
> Now I notice a different news item contradicting the above.
>
> Paint me baffled.
>
> Again the article is Spanish, so I'll do an automated translation with
> DeepL.
>
> <https://www.xatakamovil.com/vodafone/vodafone-se-alia-google-impulso-a-mensajes-rcs-pixel-europa>
>
> *Vodafone and Google collaborate: RCS and Pixel messaging boost in Europe*
>
> Updated 23 February 2023, 09:37
> jose-ricca Pepu Ricca

The thing that interests me is not a discussion about RCS being useful
or not.

What I am interested in is, why first I get a news report saying that
Vodafone is dropping *MMS* and RCS, then next another item says that the
same company collaborates with Google to expand RCS.

I don't understand. Both items are contradictory. What are they actually
doing?

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Am 25.02.23 um 11:11 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> On 2023-02-24 23:41, nospam wrote:
>> In article <1jpncjx4he.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> We are talking alternatives to SMS, which use the phone number. I am not
>>> interested in alternatives that are not related to a phone or do not use
>>> the phone number as identification.
>>
>> you might not, but most people want alternatives that are *not* tied to
>> a phone number or a particular carrier.
>
> Off-topic.

Because you do not like the truth? It is very much on topic in this
thread and in this subthread. It helps to explain why RCS failed and
will fail in the future.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

On 2023-02-25 11:49, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 25.02.23 um 11:11 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>> On 2023-02-24 23:41, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <1jpncjx4he.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
>>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> We are talking alternatives to SMS, which use the phone number. I am not
>>>> interested in alternatives that are not related to a phone or do not use
>>>> the phone number as identification.
>>>
>>> you might not, but most people want alternatives that are *not* tied to
>>> a phone number or a particular carrier.
>>
>> Off-topic.
>
> Because you do not like the truth? It is very much on topic in this
> thread and in this subthread. It helps to explain why RCS failed and
> will fail in the future.
It is my thread, I started it :-D

I am not interested in discussing why RCS might or might not fail, or
messaging applications not in phones or that do not use the phone number
as identifier.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Theo wrote:

> I think what you mean is the app falls back to SMS if the recipient doesn't
> support RCS. But that's not unique to RCS, and when any app falls back you
> get a degraded experience. Which, given the patchiness of RCS support, is
> not unlikely.

Android Messages does let you know before composing a message whether
it's part of an SMS "text" or an RCS "chat" conversation.

Am 25.02.23 um 12:17 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
> On 2023-02-25 11:49, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Am 25.02.23 um 11:11 schrieb Carlos E.R.:
>>> On 2023-02-24 23:41, nospam wrote:
>>>> In article <1jpncjx4he.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
>>>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We are talking alternatives to SMS, which use the phone number. I am not
>>>>> interested in alternatives that are not related to a phone or do not use
>>>>> the phone number as identification.
>>>>
>>>> you might not, but most people want alternatives that are *not* tied to
>>>> a phone number or a particular carrier.
>>>
>>> Off-topic.
>>
>> Because you do not like the truth? It is very much on topic in this
>> thread and in this subthread. It helps to explain why RCS failed and
>> will fail in the future.
> It is my thread, I started it :-D

Carlos, there is no such thing as "my thread" in the Usenet.

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

Am 25.02.23 um 13:37 schrieb Andy Burns:
> Theo wrote:
>
>> I think what you mean is the app falls back to SMS if the recipient doesn't
>> support RCS. But that's not unique to RCS, and when any app falls back you
>> get a degraded experience. Which, given the patchiness of RCS support, is
>> not unlikely.
>
> Android Messages does let you know before composing a message whether
> it's part of an SMS "text" or an RCS "chat" conversation.

Who the fuck cares?

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)

In article <re3pcjx4js.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>
> Often cheap BT things. Even my 50¤ earphones.

that's why you're having problems.

the better ones don't have dropouts, even at 20 feet away through
walls. they definitely don't have problems if the phone is in a pocket
(i.e., 1-2 feet away).

you also don't say which version of bluetooth is being used. bluetooth
le (v4 & later) are more reliable than bluetooth classic.

In article <j33pcjx4js.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> > Drop outs can occur when the input stage of the receiver is
> > overloaded by strong radio signals, for example close to a GSM
> > antenna mast or non-compliant WiFi.
>
> It happens to me even when walking in the woods with the in-ear-things.
> Few times, but it does happen. In this case, I may loose one ear or the
> other for a second or two, while the other one keeps working.

then it's clearly not due to overloading the front end. no surprise
there.

On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 11:05:07 +0100, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>On 2023-02-24 00:38, Kees Nuyt wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 14:36:27 -0500, nospam
>> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>>> how far away?
>>>>
>>>> One meter.
>>>
>>> something is very wrong. at that distance, it should *not*
>>> drop out at all.
>>
>> Drop outs can occur when the input stage of the receiver is
>> overloaded by strong radio signals, for example close to a GSM
>> antenna mast or non-compliant WiFi.
>
>It happens to me even when walking in the woods with the in-ear-things.
>Few times, but it does happen. In this case, I may loose one ear or the
>other

Ouch! Have you seen a surgeon?

> for a second or two, while the other one keeps working.
>
>With my good quality earphones, it happens more when I am on an
>apartment, where there can be forty wifis in reach. But it also happens
>on a detached home. But there my watching youtube seat is near to the
>wifi AP.

On 2023-02-25 14:57, nospam wrote:
> In article <re3pcjx4js.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> Often cheap BT things. Even my 50¤ earphones.
>
> that's why you're having problems.

50€ is expensive, man.

> the better ones don't have dropouts, even at 20 feet away through
> walls. they definitely don't have problems if the phone is in a pocket
> (i.e., 1-2 feet away).
>
> you also don't say which version of bluetooth is being used. bluetooth
> le (v4 & later) are more reliable than bluetooth classic.

I have no idea and I don't care.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2023-02-25 14:40, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 25.02.23 um 13:37 schrieb Andy Burns:
>> Theo wrote:
>>
>>> I think what you mean is the app falls back to SMS if the recipient doesn't
>>> support RCS. But that's not unique to RCS, and when any app falls back you
>>> get a degraded experience. Which, given the patchiness of RCS support, is
>>> not unlikely.
>>
>> Android Messages does let you know before composing a message whether
>> it's part of an SMS "text" or an RCS "chat" conversation.
>
> Who the fuck cares?

We do.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article <u0fqcjxccq.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

> >>
> >> Often cheap BT things. Even my 50? earphones.
> >
> > that's why you're having problems.
>
> 50¤ is expensive, man.

not for bluetooth headphones, it isn't.

this is expensive (and there are even higher priced options):
<https://www.amazon.com/Sony-WH-1000XM5-Canceling-Headphones-Hands-Free/
dp/B09XS7JWHH>

On 2/25/2023 2:15 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

<snip>

> What I am interested in is, why first I get a news report saying that
> Vodafone is dropping *MMS* and RCS, then next another item says that the
> same company collaborates with Google to expand RCS.
>
> I don't understand. Both items are contradictory. What are they actually
> doing?

They may have realized that it was not a good idea to be discontinuing
RCS. MMS is another story.

The issue is that SMS and RCS are rather unique in that they are both
intended to be "universal" and not tied to a specific brand of phone, a
specific carrier. or a company like Meta (for WhatsApp), Salesforce (for
Slack), Tencent (for WeChat), Apple (for iMessage) etc.. Every phone can
send and receive SMS, and RCS is the logical replacement for SMS.
Obviously Apple is not interested in diminishing the perceived value of
iMessage, at least in the U.S.. Nor does Meta see an upside in
diminishing the value of WhatsApp.

On 2023-02-26 01:16, nospam wrote:
> In article <u0fqcjxccq.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Often cheap BT things. Even my 50? earphones.
>>>
>>> that's why you're having problems.
>>
>> 50¤ is expensive, man.
>
> not for bluetooth headphones, it isn't.

For me and in this country, it is.

>
> this is expensive (and there are even higher priced options):
> <https://www.amazon.com/Sony-WH-1000XM5-Canceling-Headphones-Hands-Free/
> dp/B09XS7JWHH>

That's hugely expensive.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> writes:
>
> > In message <7x8rgnfifp.fsf@example.com>
> > Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> >
> >> It's all a mess. I don't see why there can't be a standard way to send
> >> end-to-end encrypted messages from any app to any app.
> >
> > The beauty of standards is that there are so many to choose from.
> >
>
> Those aren't standards then.
>
> Imagin if couldn't make a telephone call until you had established which
> phone company your recipient was using and installed the app and created
> an account.

The economics are different.

The phone company gets paid when people use their network. The more people
able to call their customers, the more they get paid. If they connect to
other networks then the more calls that are made and the more money they
make.

The messaging company doesn't get paid when people send messages. They get
paid through advertising, mining user data, or when users buy a handset with
the messaging app. Messages from outside of the network are counter to
these things (can't mine user data of people who aren't using their app;
won't encourage people to spend on their hardware). So they keep their
network as closed as possible[*].

There is no interest in standardisation because the users are the product,
and the more users they get into the closed ecosystem the more they get
paid.

Theo

[*] see, for example, Facebook Messenger not working on the mobile web -
because they want you to install the app to gulp on your data

On 2023-02-26 04:50, sms wrote:
> On 2/25/2023 2:15 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> What I am interested in is, why first I get a news report saying that
>> Vodafone is dropping *MMS* and RCS, then next another item says that
>> the same company collaborates with Google to expand RCS.
>>
>> I don't understand. Both items are contradictory. What are they
>> actually doing?
>
> They may have realized that it was not a good idea to be discontinuing
> RCS. MMS is another story.

Big companies do not change that fast...

I sense a hidden cat.

Maybe a news source got wrong information. Maybe there was some movement
strategy and the news people got it wrong.

>
> The issue is that SMS and RCS are rather unique in that they are both
> intended to be "universal" and not tied to a specific brand of phone, a
> specific carrier. or a company like Meta (for WhatsApp), Salesforce (for
> Slack), Tencent (for WeChat), Apple (for iMessage) etc.. Every phone can
> send and receive SMS, and RCS is the logical replacement for SMS.

Yes.

> Obviously Apple is not interested in diminishing the perceived value of
> iMessage, at least in the U.S.. Nor does Meta see an upside in
> diminishing the value of WhatsApp.

But Meta can't do anything against RCS, whereas Apple can.
Monopolistically so.

Meta doesn't see RCS as a real competitor, anyway, they don't need to do
anything. In a country like Spain, Whatsapp usage is massive, and people
are not going to switch to RCS, that's a fact. Still, I get SMS/MMS
everyday, from commercial places: some times adverts, some times
information.

For instance, I get SMS from a hardware store saying that I can see the
ticket of my last purchase in the app (ridiculous information, on
another supermarket I get the ticket within 5 seconds of the purchase,
not days after). But the SMS, which the phone says it is an SMS, has a
lower section that says "tap for preview", and when I tap it fills that
bottom part with a photo. Presumably there is an URL there.

And I have true MMS from relatives at the other side of the pond.
Recently, it says RCS instead. With those relatives having iphones, I
get SMS/MMS (they don't like whatsapp, some check it months apart).

So it seems that maybe in Canada, whatsapp doesn't have many users and
RCS would be a competitor.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> They may have realized that it was not a good idea to be discontinuing
> RCS. MMS is another story.
>
> The issue is that SMS and RCS are rather unique in that they are both
> intended to be "universal" and not tied to a specific brand of phone, a
> specific carrier. or a company like Meta (for WhatsApp), Salesforce (for
> Slack), Tencent (for WeChat), Apple (for iMessage) etc.. Every phone can
> send and receive SMS, and RCS is the logical replacement for SMS.
> Obviously Apple is not interested in diminishing the perceived value of
> iMessage, at least in the U.S.. Nor does Meta see an upside in
> diminishing the value of WhatsApp.

SMS had the advantage that it was there at the beginning of time (2G), so
everyone supports it. MMS came along with 3G, but it's often priced so high
that any usage is a mistake you only make once. (and this pricing probably
generates more angry support calls from people sending MMS inadvertently
than they make in revenue from MMS)

With RCS, the problem is that nobody is interested:
- the carriers aren't interested if it doesn't make them money
- Facebook, Apple, etc aren't interested as they have their own platforms
- the users aren't interested because they're already on iMessage, WhatsApp,
etc
- Google is only interested because they have failed, repeatedly, at having
an iMessage competitor - if they did they wouldn't care about RCS

I know in theory RCS is 'universal', but do any phones other than Android
support it? Any dumbphones? Laptops? Tablets without LTE modems?

The other problem is multi-device support, which wasn't really a problem in
the 2G/3G era, but nowadays people have phones, tablets, laptops, desktops,
and want them all on the same account. Some messaging platforms support
this better than others. So 'it works with your phone number' is actually a
mis-feature.

Theo

Theo wrote:

> With RCS, the problem is that nobody is interested:

Or rather, only the meta/apple haters are interested, I consider myself
within that set.

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Theo wrote:
>
> > With RCS, the problem is that nobody is interested:
>
> Or rather, only the meta/apple haters are interested, I consider myself
> within that set.

If that's the case, wouldn't it be easier to persuade your contacts to use
some other over the top provider, eg Signal? RCS might be a universal
solution some time in the distant future, but if your contacts' handset or
carriers don't support it you're out of luck. It's easier to persuade them
to install a new app than buy a new phone or change network. And if you
can't do that then your fallback is SMS, as always.

Theo

On 2023-02-26 11:53, Theo wrote:
> sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>> They may have realized that it was not a good idea to be discontinuing
>> RCS. MMS is another story.
>>
>> The issue is that SMS and RCS are rather unique in that they are both
>> intended to be "universal" and not tied to a specific brand of phone, a
>> specific carrier. or a company like Meta (for WhatsApp), Salesforce (for
>> Slack), Tencent (for WeChat), Apple (for iMessage) etc.. Every phone can
>> send and receive SMS, and RCS is the logical replacement for SMS.
>> Obviously Apple is not interested in diminishing the perceived value of
>> iMessage, at least in the U.S.. Nor does Meta see an upside in
>> diminishing the value of WhatsApp.
>
> SMS had the advantage that it was there at the beginning of time (2G), so
> everyone supports it. MMS came along with 3G, but it's often priced so high
> that any usage is a mistake you only make once. (and this pricing probably
> generates more angry support calls from people sending MMS inadvertently
> than they make in revenue from MMS)
>
> With RCS, the problem is that nobody is interested:
> - the carriers aren't interested if it doesn't make them money
> - Facebook, Apple, etc aren't interested as they have their own platforms
> - the users aren't interested because they're already on iMessage, WhatsApp,
> etc

Yes, but this contradicts the second news item that says that Vodafone
is boosting RCS collaborating with Google.

> - Google is only interested because they have failed, repeatedly, at having
> an iMessage competitor - if they did they wouldn't care about RCS
>
> I know in theory RCS is 'universal', but do any phones other than Android
> support it? Any dumbphones? Laptops? Tablets without LTE modems?

Laptops yes, via web client. Tied to the phone app and number, of course.

> The other problem is multi-device support, which wasn't really a problem in
> the 2G/3G era, but nowadays people have phones, tablets, laptops, desktops,
> and want them all on the same account. Some messaging platforms support
> this better than others. So 'it works with your phone number' is actually a
> mis-feature.
>
> Theo

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2023-02-26 12:47, Theo wrote:
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> Theo wrote:
>>
>>> With RCS, the problem is that nobody is interested:
>>
>> Or rather, only the meta/apple haters are interested, I consider myself
>> within that set.
>
> If that's the case, wouldn't it be easier to persuade your contacts to use
> some other over the top provider, eg Signal? RCS might be a universal
> solution some time in the distant future, but if your contacts' handset or
> carriers don't support it you're out of luck. It's easier to persuade them
> to install a new app than buy a new phone or change network. And if you
> can't do that then your fallback is SMS, as always.

Sometimes, that convincing takes years. BTDT.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> The economics are different.
>
> The phone company gets paid when people use their network. The more people
> able to call their customers, the more they get paid. If they connect to
> other networks then the more calls that are made and the more money they
> make.
>
> The messaging company doesn't get paid when people send messages. They get
> paid through advertising, mining user data, or when users buy a handset with
> the messaging app. Messages from outside of the network are counter to
> these things (can't mine user data of people who aren't using their app;
> won't encourage people to spend on their hardware). So they keep their
> network as closed as possible[*].
>
> There is no interest in standardisation because the users are the product,
> and the more users they get into the closed ecosystem the more they get
> paid.
>
> Theo
>
> [*] see, for example, Facebook Messenger not working on the mobile web -
> because they want you to install the app to gulp on your data

Maybe, but email was standardised and that didn't stop Google coming
from nowhere to be the biggest email provider.

It ought to be in all the company's interests to have more customers,
and they could do that if their was interoperability, they could tap the
market of people who do not use any app because they don't know enough
people on a single app. Google probably thinks if all messaging apps
used RCS then Google could provide a better app than anyone else and so
dominate that way.