Are VPNs getting useless against geo-restricted services?

Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 28/11/2019 21.34, Chris wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 27/11/2019 19.19, Cameo wrote:
On 11/26/2019 9:13 PM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article , default
wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 09:06:11 -0500, Wolffan
wrote:

On 25 Nov 2019, Cameo wrote (in article
):

I just tried a free subscription to Hulu and it wants me to
enable the location service in the Chrome browser. Apparently
Hulu got smart and does not rely on the US IP provided by the
VPN. Chrome location would probably provide my true location
in EU. Is there a way to defeat that, too?

Don’tuse Chrome. Use Brave. Or Vivaldi. Or Firefox. Or... there
are a _lot_ of alternatives. Brave is faster than Chrome
talking to the same sites via the same network and on the same
hardware, and _doesn’t_ blab your location.

I've often thought with a pint of Abby Ale, and some Vivaldi on
the stereo, cares seem to melt away.

That's just two of the Holy Trinity. (wine, women and song)

Hulu? Who needs it? Curl up with a good book.

If you had said (as I was expecting you were going to) "Curl up
with a good woman", then you would, indeed, have all 3.

What I find amusing in this thread is that usually, on any online
forum, when somebody is trying to do something illegal (as is
clearly the case here),

Technically it's illegal and I wish there was a legal way to receive
US broadcast channels in Europe. I would not mind paying for it. In
fact I am paying Hulu a pretty hefty price, even "illegally." Frankly
I don't see what's the harm in what I am doing. If anything I am
contributing to the revenue of Hulu (which is paying some of that to
the content providers.) If I stay "legal", that would be a lost
opportunity cost to them, wouldn't it? So I think with this stupid
geo-restriction the broadcasters only shoot themselves in the foot as
it hurts them financially. So they should be thankful for my helping
their bottom line, and I'll be thankful to keep me up-to-date on US
politics better than what I could gain from the local European TV
broadcasts. This is especially important now with the US election
season in full swing.

One of the main reasons is that the stations have not paid the content
owners for the right to distribute outside of the USA.

That's a regulatory issue.

They pay also
considering how many people are expected to watch the programming.

Why do they pay?

It is agasint the law to not pay. They are taken to court and they
impound the business. Their license to air is cancelled.

Sorry. Typo. That should have been "who do they pay?" And what do they pay
for?


On another aspect, the commercials are tailored for the USA, so they
make no revenue from airing on Europe.

They've already paid for the advertising slot so getting extra people
seeing the ads - even outside their target audience - is a bonus.

They don't see it that way. They want comercials customized as much as
possible to the people seeing it, and charge as much as possible for the
advertising.

Who are you talking about here? I'm talking about the advertisers. They
want as many eyes seeing their ads as possible regardless of whether it's
in country or not.

To them, airing a commercial for the Ford Mustang and show it in Spain
is a loss of air time and money.

Maybe, but it's at no extra cost.


It is similar reasoning to using regions on DVDs.

No. That is purely a marketing ploy to artificially stage releases and
avoid grey imports. There is no good reason for region coding other than to
extract more money from customers.

Again, they don't see it that way :-P

It is always about they getting your money, as much as they can, not
threading on other wolves shoes.

That's an interesting idiom. Not sure i get what it means?

On 29/11/2019 09.30, Chris wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 28/11/2019 21.34, Chris wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 27/11/2019 19.19, Cameo wrote:
On 11/26/2019 9:13 PM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article , default
wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 09:06:11 -0500, Wolffan
wrote:

On 25 Nov 2019, Cameo wrote (in article
):

I just tried a free subscription to Hulu and it wants me to
enable the location service in the Chrome browser. Apparently
Hulu got smart and does not rely on the US IP provided by the
VPN. Chrome location would probably provide my true location
in EU. Is there a way to defeat that, too?

Don’tuse Chrome. Use Brave. Or Vivaldi. Or Firefox. Or... there
are a _lot_ of alternatives. Brave is faster than Chrome
talking to the same sites via the same network and on the same
hardware, and _doesn’t_ blab your location.

I've often thought with a pint of Abby Ale, and some Vivaldi on
the stereo, cares seem to melt away.

That's just two of the Holy Trinity. (wine, women and song)

Hulu? Who needs it? Curl up with a good book.

If you had said (as I was expecting you were going to) "Curl up
with a good woman", then you would, indeed, have all 3.

What I find amusing in this thread is that usually, on any online
forum, when somebody is trying to do something illegal (as is
clearly the case here),

Technically it's illegal and I wish there was a legal way to receive
US broadcast channels in Europe. I would not mind paying for it. In
fact I am paying Hulu a pretty hefty price, even "illegally." Frankly
I don't see what's the harm in what I am doing. If anything I am
contributing to the revenue of Hulu (which is paying some of that to
the content providers.) If I stay "legal", that would be a lost
opportunity cost to them, wouldn't it? So I think with this stupid
geo-restriction the broadcasters only shoot themselves in the foot as
it hurts them financially. So they should be thankful for my helping
their bottom line, and I'll be thankful to keep me up-to-date on US
politics better than what I could gain from the local European TV
broadcasts. This is especially important now with the US election
season in full swing.

One of the main reasons is that the stations have not paid the content
owners for the right to distribute outside of the USA.

That's a regulatory issue.

They pay also
considering how many people are expected to watch the programming.

Why do they pay?

It is agasint the law to not pay. They are taken to court and they
impound the business. Their license to air is cancelled.

Sorry. Typo. That should have been "who do they pay?" And what do they pay
for?

To the owners of the content.

Say they air a movie; well, they have to pay Warner, Sony, whoever. If
it is a program they create, it still has music: the music has owners;
they have to pay them. If the programing is to be published to a target
of 1 million it has a price; if it goes to 100 million possible
watchers, then another. USA and Europe, much more.



On another aspect, the commercials are tailored for the USA, so they
make no revenue from airing on Europe.

They've already paid for the advertising slot so getting extra people
seeing the ads - even outside their target audience - is a bonus.

They don't see it that way. They want comercials customized as much as
possible to the people seeing it, and charge as much as possible for the
advertising.

Who are you talking about here? I'm talking about the advertisers. They
want as many eyes seeing their ads as possible regardless of whether it's
in country or not.

The advertisers have paid the station for a program that airs on
California only: that's a price. To Florida: another price. To all the
USA, another price. Include Mexico: another price. Include Europe:
another price.


To them, airing a commercial for the Ford Mustang and show it in Spain
is a loss of air time and money.

Maybe, but it's at no extra cost.

Who cares? They want the money.

"at no extra cost" is a concept they don't comprehend. Everything has a
cost. Not making revenue is a loss.

Same as piracy: they say that each pirated copy is a loss of so many
euros. They don't care that the person that got that pirated copy would
not buy it if they can't get the free copy, that no actual money is
lost. To their accounts it is a loss.



It is similar reasoning to using regions on DVDs.

No. That is purely a marketing ploy to artificially stage releases and
avoid grey imports. There is no good reason for region coding other than to
extract more money from customers.

Again, they don't see it that way :-P

It is always about they getting your money, as much as they can, not
threading on other wolves shoes.

That's an interesting idiom. Not sure i get what it means?

I invented it :-p

All the multimedia bussiness people are wolves. Each one has his area or
his clients, or his items to sell.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

It is not only internet: some banks block your credit card, and call you
home - and of course, you are not there. Subsequently they cancel the
card and create a lot of trouble for you, without money abroad. You need
to make an international phone call to the branch to have it restored.

Where a Google Voice number comes handy.

or any voip number.


Only if you have Internet access with good bandwidth at the country you
are visiting, and the bank allows "any voip number". My bank only
accepts calls that at least seem to be a classic telephone number on
their own system.

if a bank requires a classic pots number for some reason, they won't
like google voice either.

such a bank will soon lose many of its customers because pots numbers
are becoming extinct, having been replaced with cellular and voip.

internet access can be assumed, especially if someone is trying to buy
something, and voip doesn't require much bandwidth. it's low fidelity
voice.

Or their own chat system on their web page.

that also requires internet access.

Cameo wrote:
On 11/29/2019 12:05 AM, Cameo wrote:
On 11/28/2019 9:40 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Cameo wrote:
[...]

Actually, I was wrong when I wrote that Google was interfering with the
news server. It was with the mail servers, but since I use the same
client (Thunderbird) for both, I thought it was about the news server.
And most of my email servers are configured for imap, especially the 3
gmail accounts.

** If your (Thunderbird) Gmail accounts use IMAP, then configure those
accounts to use OAuth2 [1] and your problems should go away.

[1] On the 'Server Settings' page: Security Settings - Authentication
Method - OAuth2.

Thanks, I did that and will be testing it out shortly.

Well, I ran a test and the authentication error messages still popped up
with VPN running.

So it seems that - besides against IP-hopping within a country - Gmail
has an extra protection mechanism against IP-hopping between countries,
i.e. in your case between your-EU-country and the US.

You could try to verify that assumption by shutting down Thunderbird
before going to bed and then the next day first switch the VPN to the
other country and then restart TB. If that also fails, something else
must be happening, because that scenario - after some time, IP in
another country - would be a valid scenerio if you were travelling (by
plane) to the other country, i.e. Gmail should not complain about
*that*.

On 11/29/2019 11:35 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 29/11/2019 09.30, Chris wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 28/11/2019 21.34, Chris wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 27/11/2019 19.19, Cameo wrote:
On 11/26/2019 9:13 PM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article , default
wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 09:06:11 -0500, Wolffan
wrote:

On 25 Nov 2019, Cameo wrote (in article
):

I just tried a free subscription to Hulu and it wants me to
enable the location service in the Chrome browser. Apparently
Hulu got smart and does not rely on the US IP provided by the
VPN. Chrome location would probably provide my true location
in EU. Is there a way to defeat that, too?

Don’tuse Chrome. Use Brave. Or Vivaldi. Or Firefox. Or... there
are a _lot_ of alternatives. Brave is faster than Chrome
talking to the same sites via the same network and on the same
hardware, and _doesn’t_ blab your location.

I've often thought with a pint of Abby Ale, and some Vivaldi on
the stereo, cares seem to melt away.

That's just two of the Holy Trinity. (wine, women and song)

Hulu? Who needs it? Curl up with a good book.

If you had said (as I was expecting you were going to) "Curl up
with a good woman", then you would, indeed, have all 3.

What I find amusing in this thread is that usually, on any online
forum, when somebody is trying to do something illegal (as is
clearly the case here),

Technically it's illegal and I wish there was a legal way to receive
US broadcast channels in Europe. I would not mind paying for it. In
fact I am paying Hulu a pretty hefty price, even "illegally." Frankly
I don't see what's the harm in what I am doing. If anything I am
contributing to the revenue of Hulu (which is paying some of that to
the content providers.) If I stay "legal", that would be a lost
opportunity cost to them, wouldn't it? So I think with this stupid
geo-restriction the broadcasters only shoot themselves in the foot as
it hurts them financially. So they should be thankful for my helping
their bottom line, and I'll be thankful to keep me up-to-date on US
politics better than what I could gain from the local European TV
broadcasts. This is especially important now with the US election
season in full swing.

One of the main reasons is that the stations have not paid the content
owners for the right to distribute outside of the USA.

That's a regulatory issue.

They pay also
considering how many people are expected to watch the programming.

Why do they pay?

It is agasint the law to not pay. They are taken to court and they
impound the business. Their license to air is cancelled.

Sorry. Typo. That should have been "who do they pay?" And what do they pay
for?

To the owners of the content.

Say they air a movie; well, they have to pay Warner, Sony, whoever. If
it is a program they create, it still has music: the music has owners;
they have to pay them. If the programing is to be published to a target
of 1 million it has a price; if it goes to 100 million possible
watchers, then another. USA and Europe, much more.



On another aspect, the commercials are tailored for the USA, so they
make no revenue from airing on Europe.

They've already paid for the advertising slot so getting extra people
seeing the ads - even outside their target audience - is a bonus.

They don't see it that way. They want comercials customized as much as
possible to the people seeing it, and charge as much as possible for the
advertising.

Who are you talking about here? I'm talking about the advertisers. They
want as many eyes seeing their ads as possible regardless of whether it's
in country or not.

The advertisers have paid the station for a program that airs on
California only: that's a price. To Florida: another price. To all the
USA, another price. Include Mexico: another price. Include Europe:
another price.


To them, airing a commercial for the Ford Mustang and show it in Spain
is a loss of air time and money.

Maybe, but it's at no extra cost.

Who cares? They want the money.

"at no extra cost" is a concept they don't comprehend. Everything has a
cost. Not making revenue is a loss.

Same as piracy: they say that each pirated copy is a loss of so many
euros. They don't care that the person that got that pirated copy would
not buy it if they can't get the free copy, that no actual money is
lost. To their accounts it is a loss.

Bad analogy. Those pirated copies could be bought legitimately, but in
my case I could not buy Hulu subscription outside of US legimately at
all. As I mentioned before, I would if I could.

On 11/29/2019 8:59 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 28/11/2019 23.51, Cameo wrote:
On 11/28/2019 9:57 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 28/11/2019 21.17, Cameo wrote:
On 11/28/2019 1:13 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 28/11/2019 00.36, Cameo wrote:
On 11/27/2019 9:30 PM, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote:
On 2019-11-25 16:22, Cameo wrote:
I just tried a free subscription to Hulu and it wants me to enable
the location service in the Chrome browser. Apparently Hulu got
smart
and does not rely on the US IP provided by the VPN. Chrome location
would probably provide my true location in EU. Is there a way to
defeat that, too?

Stop using Chrome.

I hear it so often that I just might give it a try. Another related
thing that started happening lately is that when I turn on the VPN and
then I try to run my Thunderbird news client, Google gives me all
kinds
of security warnings and even blocks the client from accessing the
news
server. This is fairly recent behavior and forces me not to use
Thunderbird with VPN on. I am getting tired of this heavyhandedness by
Google and wonder if Chrome is in the middle of all that, too.

What news server are you using?

I don't see why google would even see your connection to
ethernal-september.

You must have got it wrong, google is not complaining about your news
access. It is probably complaining about your access to google mail -
which is a known issue if you use an vpn.

You're right. It was the mail servers. I use Thunderbird.
BTW, I just installed FireFox, too, and so far it looks good and play
well with ExpressVPN. Looks like I better remember not to bring up
Thunderbird while my VPN is on.

It will probably work if you change the authorization system to oauth2.

oauth2? But don't most servers require specific auth. systems?

No. Most servers give a list of auth systems when connecting to them,
there is a negotiation.

But gmail "wants" you to use oauth2. They do offer others, but they
prefer this one, which they consider more secure - instead of
implementing classic methods like certificates.

You may be right about gmail, but I also have some other email accounts
which don't like oauth2. Like comcast, for instance. Yes, it still have
it here.

On 11/29/2019 9:03 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 29/11/2019 02.25, nospam wrote:
In article , Cameo
wrote:

It is not only internet: some banks block your credit card, and call you
home - and of course, you are not there. Subsequently they cancel the
card and create a lot of trouble for you, without money abroad. You need
to make an international phone call to the branch to have it restored.

Where a Google Voice number comes handy.

or any voip number.


Only if you have Internet access with good bandwidth at the country you
are visiting, and the bank allows "any voip number". My bank only
accepts calls that at least seem to be a classic telephone number on
their own system. Or their own chat system on their web page.

My GV number looks like any phone company provided number and the voice
quality is better than what I get through my cell carrier T-Mobile. I
also get SMS texting and voice mail. All for the huge price of zero. One
big downside is that Google can terminate that service any time.

On 29/11/2019 16.01, Cameo wrote:
On 11/29/2019 11:35 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 29/11/2019 09.30, Chris wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 28/11/2019 21.34, Chris wrote:
Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 27/11/2019 19.19, Cameo wrote:
On 11/26/2019 9:13 PM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article , default
wrote:
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 09:06:11 -0500, Wolffan
wrote:

On 25 Nov 2019, Cameo wrote (in article
):

I just tried a free subscription to Hulu and it wants me to
enable the location service in the Chrome browser. Apparently
Hulu got smart and does not rely on the US IP provided by the
VPN. Chrome location would probably provide my true location
in EU. Is there a way to defeat that, too?

Don’tuse Chrome. Use Brave. Or Vivaldi. Or Firefox. Or... there
are a _lot_ of alternatives. Brave is faster than Chrome
talking to the same sites via the same network and on the same
hardware, and _doesn’t_ blab your location.

I've often thought with a pint of Abby Ale, and some Vivaldi on
the stereo, cares seem to melt away.

That's just two of the Holy Trinity.* (wine, women and song)

Hulu?* Who needs it?* Curl up with a good book.

If you had said (as I was expecting you were going to) "Curl up
with a good woman", then you would, indeed, have all 3.

What I find amusing in this thread is that usually, on any online
forum, when somebody is trying to do something illegal (as is
clearly the case here),

Technically it's illegal and I wish there was a legal way to receive
US broadcast channels in Europe. I would not mind paying for it. In
fact I am paying Hulu a pretty hefty price, even "illegally."
Frankly
I don't see what's the harm in what I am doing. If anything I am
contributing to the revenue of Hulu (which is paying some of that to
the content providers.) If I stay "legal", that would be a lost
opportunity cost to them, wouldn't it? So I think with this stupid
geo-restriction the broadcasters only shoot themselves in the
foot as
it hurts them financially. So they should be thankful for my helping
their bottom line, and I'll be thankful to keep me up-to-date on US
politics better than what I could gain from the local European TV
broadcasts. This is especially important now with the US election
season in full swing.

One of the main reasons is that the stations have not paid the
content
owners for the right to distribute outside of the USA.

That's a regulatory issue.

They pay also
considering how many people are expected to watch the programming.

Why do they pay?

It is agasint the law to not pay. They are taken to court and they
impound the business. Their license to air is cancelled.

Sorry. Typo. That should have been "who do they pay?" And what do
they pay
for?

To the owners of the content.

Say they air a movie; well, they have to pay Warner, Sony, whoever. If
it is a program they create, it still has music: the music has owners;
they have to pay them. If the programing is to be published to a target
of 1 million it has a price; if it goes to 100 million possible
watchers, then another. USA and Europe, much more.



On another aspect, the commercials are tailored for the USA, so they
make no revenue from airing on Europe.

They've already paid for the advertising slot so getting extra people
seeing the ads - even outside their target audience - is a bonus.

They don't see it that way. They want comercials customized as much as
possible to the people seeing it, and charge as much as possible for
the
advertising.

Who are you talking about here? I'm talking about the advertisers. They
want as many eyes seeing their ads as possible regardless of whether
it's
in country or not.

The advertisers have paid the station for a program that airs on
California only: that's a price. To Florida: another price. To all the
USA, another price. Include Mexico: another price. Include Europe:
another price.


To them, airing a commercial for the Ford Mustang and show it in Spain
is a loss of air time and money.

Maybe, but it's at no extra cost.

Who cares? They want the money.

"at no extra cost" is a concept they don't comprehend. Everything has a
cost. Not making revenue is a loss.

Same as piracy: they say that each pirated copy is a loss of so many
euros. They don't care that the person that got that pirated copy would
not buy it if they can't get the free copy, that no actual money is
lost. To their accounts it is a loss.

Bad analogy. Those pirated copies could be bought legitimately, but in
my case I could not buy Hulu subscription outside of US legimately at
all. As I mentioned before, I would if I could.

Not really. I would perhaps want to buy the English version published in
the USA but I may not be able to watch that DVD in Europe. At least they
do not want me to.

Nor do they want to allow me to buy the India DVD version in Europe,
because it is much cheaper.


--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 29/11/2019 14.11, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

It is not only internet: some banks block your credit card, and call you
home - and of course, you are not there. Subsequently they cancel the
card and create a lot of trouble for you, without money abroad. You need
to make an international phone call to the branch to have it restored.

Where a Google Voice number comes handy.

or any voip number.


Only if you have Internet access with good bandwidth at the country you
are visiting, and the bank allows "any voip number". My bank only
accepts calls that at least seem to be a classic telephone number on
their own system.

if a bank requires a classic pots number for some reason, they won't
like google voice either.

such a bank will soon lose many of its customers because pots numbers
are becoming extinct, having been replaced with cellular and voip.

I did not say POTS, I said classic telephone number. That includes a
mobile phone, but not VoIP. They are not becoming extinct. Actually, I
do not know anyone here without one. I have never met someone that only
has a VoIP number.

Me, for example: the technology is VoIP, but the number is classic. With
almost classic payment scheme.


internet access can be assumed, especially if someone is trying to buy
something, and voip doesn't require much bandwidth. it's low fidelity
voice.

If I travel to the USA, by default I have very very expensive Internet
service on my mobile phone. So much so that we take care to disable it
on arrival. Prohibitive. Similarly phone service is also expensive. We
have to be aware that we have to buy a temporary mobile phone SIM,
something that many people do not know (geeks excluded).


Or their own chat system on their web page.

that also requires internet access.

True. But much cheaper than a classic phone call, international, and
they don't invent excuses.



--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 29/11/2019 16.14, Cameo wrote:
On 11/29/2019 9:03 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 29/11/2019 02.25, nospam wrote:
In article , Cameo
wrote:

It is not only internet: some banks block your credit card, and
call you
home - and of course, you are not there. Subsequently they cancel the
card and create a lot of trouble for you, without money abroad. You
need
to make an international phone call to the branch to have it restored.

Where a Google Voice number comes handy.

or any voip number.


Only if you have Internet access with good bandwidth at the country you
are visiting, and the bank allows "any voip number". My bank only
accepts calls that at least seem to be a classic telephone number on
their own system. Or their own chat system on their web page.

My GV number looks like any phone company provided number and the voice
quality is better than what I get through my cell carrier T-Mobile. I
also get SMS texting and voice mail. All for the huge price of zero. One
big downside is that Google can terminate that service any time.


As long as it enters on their classic phone service, it would be accepted.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article , Cameo wrote:
....
Bad analogy. Those pirated copies could be bought legitimately, but in
my case I could not buy Hulu subscription outside of US legimately at
all. As I mentioned before, I would if I could.

Yep. There was that time, back in about 1993 if I remember right, when
somebody in an online forum posted an analogy as a way of arguing a point,
and the person to whom the post was directed did *NOT* respond that it was
a "bad analogy".

Hasn't happened since, of course...

--

First of all, I do not appreciate your playing stupid here at all.

- Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn -

In article , Cameo
wrote:


My GV number looks like any phone company provided number and the voice
quality is better than what I get through my cell carrier T-Mobile. I
also get SMS texting and voice mail. All for the huge price of zero. One
big downside is that Google can terminate that service any time.

it's very easy to tell whether a number is google voice, voip, mobile
or pots.

however, almost nobody cares.

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


Where a Google Voice number comes handy.

or any voip number.


Only if you have Internet access with good bandwidth at the country you
are visiting, and the bank allows "any voip number". My bank only
accepts calls that at least seem to be a classic telephone number on
their own system.

if a bank requires a classic pots number for some reason, they won't
like google voice either.

such a bank will soon lose many of its customers because pots numbers
are becoming extinct, having been replaced with cellular and voip.

I did not say POTS, I said classic telephone number. That includes a
mobile phone, but not VoIP.

mobile phones are relatively new and not what anyone would call
'classic'.

voip is only slightly more recent, starting in the mid-90s, rather than
mid-80s for cellular.

They are not becoming extinct. Actually, I
do not know anyone here without one. I have never met someone that only
has a VoIP number.

they definitely are becoming extinct.

legacy pots landlines are on the decline, replaced by mobile and voip.

http://infographic.statista.com/norm..._landline_phon
es_in_the_united_states_n.jpg
https://andyabramson.blogs.com/voipwatch//tgvoipllslide.gif

https://www.thesenior.com.au/story/5487492/landlines-becoming-extinct/
And all landline phones are projected to become extinct as soon as
2037, according to analysis of Australian Communications and Media
Authority data by finder.com.au.

Me, for example: the technology is VoIP, but the number is classic. With
almost classic payment scheme.

that doesn't make any sense.

internet access can be assumed, especially if someone is trying to buy
something, and voip doesn't require much bandwidth. it's low fidelity
voice.

If I travel to the USA, by default I have very very expensive Internet
service on my mobile phone. So much so that we take care to disable it
on arrival. Prohibitive. Similarly phone service is also expensive. We
have to be aware that we have to buy a temporary mobile phone SIM,
something that many people do not know (geeks excluded).

most people know about local sims, given that they are widely
advertised to those who travel. there are even kiosks at the airports,
although that's not usually the best deal.

Or their own chat system on their web page.

that also requires internet access.

True. But much cheaper than a classic phone call, international, and
they don't invent excuses.

that depends on many factors.

in general, the difference is very small, if any.

On 11/29/2019 4:48 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 29/11/2019 16.14, Cameo wrote:
On 11/29/2019 9:03 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
On 29/11/2019 02.25, nospam wrote:
In article , Cameo
wrote:

It is not only internet: some banks block your credit card, and
call you
home - and of course, you are not there. Subsequently they cancel the
card and create a lot of trouble for you, without money abroad. You
need
to make an international phone call to the branch to have it restored.

Where a Google Voice number comes handy.

or any voip number.


Only if you have Internet access with good bandwidth at the country you
are visiting, and the bank allows "any voip number". My bank only
accepts calls that at least seem to be a classic telephone number on
their own system. Or their own chat system on their web page.

My GV number looks like any phone company provided number and the voice
quality is better than what I get through my cell carrier T-Mobile. I
also get SMS texting and voice mail. All for the huge price of zero. One
big downside is that Google can terminate that service any time.


As long as it enters on their classic phone service, it would be accepted.

On the US side it enters the cell company's network fine. On the EU side
does not. I have to have a data connection here. If I don't, the calls
get are sent to voice mail and also get transcribed for email delivery.

On 11/29/2019 5:11 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Cameo
wrote:


My GV number looks like any phone company provided number and the voice
quality is better than what I get through my cell carrier T-Mobile. I
also get SMS texting and voice mail. All for the huge price of zero. One
big downside is that Google can terminate that service any time.

it's very easy to tell whether a number is google voice, voip, mobile
or pots.

Really? How? Each gets a block of numbers to assign from?