I'll be waiting for your review. I think I'd like this even if I kept
the POTS. Then you'd have a cell phone with extension hand sets. I
think that's possible too, isn't it?
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Several times over the last couple of years, I've thought and sometimes
> said "They really oughtta make ..."
>
> Well, now they do.
> <http://www.amazon.com/Xtreme-Technologies-BT-Bluetooth-Gateway/dp/B00135XU7Q/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=wireless&qid=1259040702&sr=8-1>
>
>
>
> We're not heavy phone users, so paying for a landline and two cell
> phones has rankled. Still, we're not willing to give up the convenience
> of the cells. Yet dropping the landline would have its own drawbacks.
> Cell phones don't get good reception in parts of the house. It's a
> wandery sort of place, as well, and we are used to having three cordless
> phones in known parts of the house. With cells alone, each of us would
> have to go searching aobut, following the osund when a call came in.
>
> After more on-line research and calls to phone service suppliers to find
> out some details, I've ordered a cell to "land" appliance
>
> With this thingie, when one comes home each of up to three cell phones
> is put on its charger near the base, where it links using Bluetooth.
> When a call comes in to any cell, it rings the attached conventional
> phones. It says the ring may be different for each cell, although that
> may depend on the cordless phones, I suppose.
>
> One may also call out from the cordless handsets and it will pass on key
> presses to the call for retrieving messages, doing banking and so forth.
> Most user reviews say it doesn't pass on the caller ID name but does
> pass the number.
>
> So if this thingie works as expected, we are going to dump the landline.
> Hardly anybody knows my cell number; I'm hardly a Chatty Kathy - away
> from here. ;-) I'll drop my cell # and transfer the landline # to
> my cell. I'll of course get calls for a while trying to reach Carol at
> home, but that should die off pretty soon.
>
> The idea of cutting the cord I've lived with and depended on since I can
> remember is just weird feeling. Still, it all seems to make sense. If
> there's nobody home to answer a call, they still get it away from home,
> without the caller even knowing. And I like the idea of not having to
> call in for messages at home when on the road.
>
> The savings are substantial, with a one time cost of $80 to stop the
> landline costs. Looking at the last 6 months cell usage, we may not even
> have to up our shared minutes. Even if we do, it's only $10/mo. to add
> 75% more minutes.
>
> Then there's the DSL service. the distance is long enough and the wiring
> old enough that I can't sync above 768Kbits on DSL. Lately, true
> throughput has been falling to under 300 from the "normal" almost 500.
> Rebooting everything perks it back up, but that's a hassle. Methinks
> it's time to take the Comcast offer of six months of cable internet for
> $25/mo. Of course, they stick the knife in after the intro period, but I
> sure am tired of slooow downloads.
>
> Further Chatty Moose
>
> PS: Now you know why I'm behind in looking at and commenting on posted
> images (for good or ill). The MooseMind has been busy with weighty
> matters. :-)
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|