Searching \ for '[OT]new magicJack innovation: a very small cellula' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=very+small+cellula
Search entire site for: 'new magicJack innovation: a very small cellula'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT]new magicJack innovation: a very small cellula'
2010\01\08@221644 by Funny NYPD

picon face
Check out this news on the CES show:
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20100108/D9D3OF780.html

"LAS VEGAS (AP) - The company behind the magicJack, the cheap Internet
phone gadget that's been heavily promoted on TV, has made a new version
of the device that allows free calls from cell phones in the home, in a
fashion that's sure to draw protest from cellular carriers.
The new magicJack uses, without permission, radio frequencies for which
cellular carriers have paid billions of dollars for exclusive licenses.
YMax Corp., which is based in Palm Beach, Fla., said this week at the
International Consumers Electronics Show that it plans to start selling
the device in about four months for $40, the same price as the original
magicJack. As before, it will provide free calls to the U.S. and Canada
for one year.
The device is, in essence, a very small cellular tower for the home."

Funny N.
Au Group Electronics, http://www.AuElectronics.com
http://www.AuElectronics.com/products
http://augroups.blogspot.com/



     

2010\01\08@225541 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face

> Check out this news on the CES show:
> http://apnews.excite.com/article/20100108/D9D3OF780.html
>
> "LAS VEGAS (AP) - The company behind the magicJack, the cheap Internet
> phone gadget that's been heavily promoted on TV, has made a new version
> of the device that allows free calls from cell phones in the home, in a
> fashion that's sure to draw protest from cellular carriers.
> The new magicJack uses, without permission, radio frequencies for which
> cellular carriers have paid billions of dollars for exclusive licenses.
> YMax Corp., which is based in Palm Beach, Fla., said this week at the
> International Consumers Electronics Show that it plans to start selling
> the device in about four months for $40, the same price as the original
> magicJack. As before, it will provide free calls to the U.S. and Canada
> for one year.
> The device is, in essence, a very small cellular tower for the home."

The company claims the FCC does not regulate RF in the home. I'm sure the
FCC would differ. I just did a search of the FCC equipment database for
YMax. Nothing shows up. I doubt the FCC will accept this.

There are, of course, FemtoCell stations that use VoIP to connect to the
cellular network. These are small privately owned base stations that are
used with permission of the cellular carrier.

Another interesting thing in the article is that at one point, it says it
will work with a cellphone within 8 feet. The next sentence says it will
cover a 3,000 square foot home. Interesting math there....

Harold


--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2010\01\08@231752 by Funny NYPD

picon face
8 feet distance for the first time initialization, which will make the first hand-shake between the cell phone and MJ device. You probably need read a verification code on computer screen, then type it on the cell phone to get the cell phone connected.

It costs about the same as current MJ device, and around US$20/year is a bargain.

>From what we have learned on current MJ, the voice quality is great as long as you got a decent high speed internet.

http://www.auelectronics.com/forum/index.php/topic,5.msg227.html#msg227

Funny N.
Au Group Electronics, http://www.AuElectronics.com
http://www.AuElectronics.com/products
http://augroups.blogspot.com/




________________________________
From: Harold Hallikainen <spam_OUTharoldTakeThisOuTspamhallikainen.org>
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. <.....piclistKILLspamspam@spam@mit.edu>
Sent: Fri, January 8, 2010 11:14:54 PM
Subject: Re: [OT]new magicJack innovation: a very small cellular tower for  the home?


{Quote hidden}

The company claims the FCC does not regulate RF in the home. I'm sure the
FCC would differ. I just did a search of the FCC equipment database for
YMax. Nothing shows up. I doubt the FCC will accept this.

There are, of course, FemtoCell stations that use VoIP to connect to the
cellular network. These are small privately owned base stations that are
used with permission of the cellular carrier.

Another interesting thing in the article is that at one point, it says it
will work with a cellphone within 8 feet. The next sentence says it will
cover a 3,000 square foot home. Interesting math there....

Harold


--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2010\01\08@232705 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
Harold Hallikainen wrote:

> Another interesting thing in the article is that at one point, it says it
> will work with a cellphone within 8 feet. The next sentence says it will
> cover a 3,000 square foot home. Interesting math there....
>

A 45-story house with two inch ceilings?

-Bob

2010\01\08@235646 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: piclist-bouncesspamKILLspammit.edu On Behalf Of Harold Hallikainen
> Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 11:15 PM
>
> > Check out this news on the CES show:
> > apnews.excite.com/article/20100108/D9D3OF780.html
> >
> > "LAS VEGAS (AP) - The company behind the magicJack, the cheap Internet
<snip>
>
> The company claims the FCC does not regulate RF in the home. I'm sure the
> FCC would differ. I just did a search of the FCC equipment database for
> YMax. Nothing shows up. I doubt the FCC will accept this.

I searched the data base too and couldn't find any registrations for YMax.
This surprised me as there should at least be registrations for their
existing products. Perhaps the manufacturing arm of the company has a
different name. Assuming they use a different name for
manufacturing/approvals then, if they have already received approval for the
device as a FemtoCell it could be an interesting and potentially long legal
process.

If they have NOT already been approved as a FemtoCell device then I suspect
there will be notices and/or fines really soon.

If they did get their product through and their lawyers think they found a
loophole in the rules regarding the use of that spectrum, there will likely
be an injunction against the product issued while the loophole is examined
from a legal basis. Even if a loophole is ruled to exist I would expect the
FCC will change the rules to eliminate the loophole.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Paul Hutch


{Quote hidden}

2010\01\09@151054 by Harold Hallikainen

face picon face

> I searched the data base too and couldn't find any registrations for YMax.
> This surprised me as there should at least be registrations for their
> existing products. Perhaps the manufacturing arm of the company has a
> different name. Assuming they use a different name for
> manufacturing/approvals then, if they have already received approval for
> the
> device as a FemtoCell it could be an interesting and potentially long
> legal
> process.

Do they have any other products that are intentional radiators? Most
unintentional radiators do not require FCC registration, just a
Declaration of Conformity
(http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2010/15/101/).


Harold

--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2010\01\09@164759 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspamspam.....mit.edu On Behalf Of Harold Hallikainen
> Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 3:30 PM
>
> > I searched the data base too and couldn't find any registrations for
YMax.
> > This surprised me as there should at least be registrations for their
> > existing products. Perhaps the manufacturing arm of the company has a
> > different name. Assuming they use a different name for
> > manufacturing/approvals then, if they have already received approval for
> > the device as a FemtoCell it could be an interesting and potentially
long
> > legal process.
>
> Do they have any other products that are intentional radiators? Most
> unintentional radiators do not require FCC registration, just a
> Declaration of Conformity
(http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2010/15/101/).
>

I don't think they have any other intentional radiators. I had forgotten
about the change to DOC's  for PC peripherals which makes them not show in
the searchable database anymore. Just looked up my employer's products and
only the pre-2000 PC peripherals show up along with the intentional
radiators.

Paul Hutch

>
> Harold
>
> --
> FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
> opportunities available!

2010\01\11@085211 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 20:17 -0800, Funny NYPD wrote:
> 8 feet distance for the first time initialization, which will make the first hand-shake between the cell phone and MJ device. You probably need read a verification code on computer screen, then type it on the cell phone to get the cell phone connected.
>
> It costs about the same as current MJ device, and around US$20/year is a bargain.

IMHO it will NEVER see the light of day, carriers pay alot of money for
exclusive access to their spectrum, they will crush this so quickly it
will likely never hit store shelves.

TTYL

2010\01\11@091355 by Funny NYPD

picon face
Well, according to the inventor, the FCC doesn't regulate the "in-house" "short range" devices for cellar phones, he is an veteran on telecommunication, not sure where did he get those information. On one point, he is right, that the cellar phone signal in house is really poor.

It claims this new device will even working with an expired cellar phone. It probably only use it as a voice device.

Funny N.
Au Group Electronics, http://www.AuElectronics.com
http://www.AuElectronics.com/products
http://augroups.blogspot.com/




________________________________
From: Herbert Graf <EraseMEhkgrafspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com>
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. <piclistspamspam_OUTmit.edu>
Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 8:51:43 AM
Subject: Re: [OT]new magicJack innovation: a very small cellular tower for the home?

On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 20:17 -0800, Funny NYPD wrote:
> 8 feet distance for the first time initialization, which will make the first hand-shake between the cell phone and MJ device. You probably need read a verification code on computer screen, then type it on the cell phone to get the cell phone connected.
>
> It costs about the same as current MJ device, and around US$20/year is a bargain.

IMHO it will NEVER see the light of day, carriers pay alot of money for
exclusive access to their spectrum, they will crush this so quickly it
will likely never hit store shelves.

TTYL

2010\01\11@133300 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 06:13 -0800, Funny NYPD wrote:
> Well, according to the inventor, the FCC doesn't regulate the "in-house" "short range" devices for cellar phones, he is an veteran on telecommunication, not sure where did he get those information. On one point, he is right, that the cellar phone signal in house is really poor.

We'll see what the FCC thinks about that. If a band is regulated it
doesn't matter how "short range" you go, ESPECIALLY if a company has
paid hundreds of millions for exclusive rights to that band.

Lets look at this simply: how would you feel if you lived in a condo and
the guy next door bought this device and you realized your cell phone
didn't work anymore in your condo, how would you react?

Mark my words: it's not going to happen.

TTYL


2010\01\11@145027 by Marc Nicholas

picon face
Has anyone considered that, if you read the press release carefully and
suspend your disbelief....they could actually be talking about a UMA
"dongle" for a computer.

- UMA would require that you type in a code (in that you have to pair it
with Wifi)
- UMA is "unlicensed" in the home as it's covered under ISC for* low power
use*
- They mention "compatible" cellphones -- UMA requires a compatible
cellphone

Just a thought....given how much we're talking about this, it'd be a neat
marketing trick to build a UMA base station and then pump it up like this.

I'm not sure how they'd convince the carriers to let them use their own UNC,
however...so that's up for debate :)

-marc

On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Herbert Graf <@spam@hkgrafKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2010\01\11@145244 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
Isn't there some kind of exemption for intentional radiators with less
than 1mW output power? I seem to remember something like you can do
almost anything you want on any frequency if the total EIRP is less
than 1mW and you are willing to accept interference/cease operating if
you cause interference.

Sean


On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Herbert Graf <KILLspamhkgrafKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2010\01\11@151139 by John Gardner

picon face
> Isn't there some kind of exemption for intentional radiators with less
> than 1mW output power? I seem to remember something like you can do
> almost anything you want on any frequency if the total EIRP is less
> than 1mW and you are willing to accept interference/cease operating if
> you cause interference.

According to the ARRL pub on chapter 15, you need "type acceptance" to
sell an "intentional radiator" - If I'm reading it right...

http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/part15.html

Scroll down to "Understanding the FCC Regulations for Low-Power,
Non-Licensed Transmitters".

2010\01\11@153818 by M.L.

flavicon
face
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Marc Nicholas <RemoveMEgeekythingTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

I'd say that's likely.
It's a natural progression from WiFi being available in many homes and
many rural areas having bad cell phone coverage indoors.
All new smart phones have WiFi. If you have an unlocked Nokia N900 you
can very likely do VOIP on your phone right now. Probably some Android
devices will be able to do it as well.


--
Martin K.

2010\01\11@154655 by Funny NYPD

picon face
I am not a wireless guy, and not familiar with FCC regulations. But unregulated UWB sounds interesting.

Isn't that great to have your own cellular tower on your computer or laptop?

I am curious how can they make it (the cellular tower) so small to fit into a tiny magicJack device. If considering generating a ring tone for regular phone from a PC USB is hard, to make a cellar tower into a device this size would be harder. (It is claimed that 1.7 Millions lines  of code was written and stored in the Samsung chip for regular phone service, probably more for the cellular phone.)

I cannot wait and see. Especially consider, there are now about 5 Million magicJack user. Sooner or later they will become the largest phone company in North America.

Back a few weeks, they started to offer Canadian MJ phone number for US$29.95/year, which is much better than any other deal a Canadian can find on the market. I do believe the new device will coming.

If those big telecommunication company (Verizon, Bell) cannot compete or "kill" this technology, I would imagine that MJ will be the next "Google" in telecommunication industry.

More idea? Please visit:
http://www.auelectronics.com/forum/index.php/topic,5.msg229/topicseen.html#msg229

Funny N.
Au Group Electronics, http://www.AuElectronics.com
http://www.AuElectronics.com/products
http://augroups.blogspot.com/




________________________________
From: John Gardner <spamBeGonegoflo3spamBeGonespamgmail.com>
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. <TakeThisOuTpiclistEraseMEspamspam_OUTmit.edu>
Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 3:11:18 PM
Subject: Re: [OT]new magicJack innovation: a very small cellular tower for the home?

> Isn't there some kind of exemption for intentional radiators with less
> than 1mW output power? I seem to remember something like you can do
> almost anything you want on any frequency if the total EIRP is less
> than 1mW and you are willing to accept interference/cease operating if
> you cause interference.

According to the ARRL pub on chapter 15, you need "type acceptance" to
sell an "intentional radiator" - If I'm reading it right...

http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/part15.html

Scroll down to "Understanding the FCC Regulations for Low-Power,
Non-Licensed Transmitters".

2010\01\11@155113 by Paul Hutchinson

picon face
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesspamTakeThisOuTmit.edu On Behalf Of Sean Breheny
> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 2:52 PM
>
> Isn't there some kind of exemption for intentional radiators with less
> than 1mW output power? I seem to remember something like you can do
> almost anything you want on any frequency if the total EIRP is less
> than 1mW and you are willing to accept interference/cease operating if
> you cause interference.

As I understand the rules, from a practical standpoint, yes for individuals
(hobbyist), no for products sold to the public.

IIRC, the actual rules say no to any signal that leaves your private
property boundaries and violates the frequency/power rules. However there
are no monetary fines for individuals who unintentionally violate spectrum
rules at low power, they just make you stop using it when caught. There are
potentially large fines for businesses that sell products that fail to meet
frequency and power regulations.

Paul Hutch

>
> Sean

2010\01\11@155730 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face

> Isn't there some kind of exemption for intentional radiators with less
> than 1mW output power? I seem to remember something like you can do
> almost anything you want on any frequency if the total EIRP is less
> than 1mW and you are willing to accept interference/cease operating if
> you cause interference.
>
> Sean

There are very few exemptions for intentional radiators.

www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2010/15/201/
  (b) Except as otherwise exempted in paragraph (c) of this section and
  in § 15.23 of this part, all intentional radiators operating under the
  provisions of this part shall be certificated by the Commission
  pursuant to the procedures in subpart J of part 2 of this chapter prior
  to marketing.

www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2010/15/23/
  (a) Equipment authorization is not required for devices that are not
  marketed, are not constructed from a kit, and are built in quantities
  of five or less for personal use.

  (b) It is recognized that the individual builder of home-built
  equipment may not possess the means to perform the measurements for
  determining compliance with the regulations. In this case, the builder
  is expected to employ good engineering practices to meet the specified
  technical standards to the greatest extent practicable. The provisions
  of § 15.5 apply to this equipment.


www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2010/15/201/
  (c) For devices such as perimeter protection systems which, in
  accordance with § 15.31(d), are required to be measured at the
  installation site, each application for certification must be
  accompanied by a statement indicating that the system has been tested
  at three installations and found to comply at each installation. Until
  such time as certification is granted, a given installation of a system
  that was measured for the submission for certification will be
  considered to be in compliance with the provisions of this chapter,
  including the marketing regulations in subpart I of part 2 of this
  chapter, if tests at that installation show the system to be in
  compliance with the relevant technical requirements. Similarly, where
  measurements must be performed on site for equipment subject to
  verification, a given installation that has been verified to
  demonstrate compliance with the applicable standards will be considered
  to be in compliance with the provisions of this chapter, including the
  marketing regulations in subpart I of part 2 of this chapter.

So, almost all commercially manufactured intentional radiators require FCC
certification (getting an FCC ID number, etc.).

In the US, cellular appears to operate in the 824MHz to 940MHz area.
http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2010/15/ does not appear to have
special limits for the frequencies used by US cellular as defined at
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_frequencies#Frequency_bands_used_in_the_United_States
. So, I think the general requirements of

http://www.hallikainen.org/FCC/FccRules/2008/15/209/section.pdf

apply. So, it appears you can have a radiated field of 200uV/m 3m from the
device.

It MIGHT be possible to make their system work with this field strength
limit. However, the manufacturer's argument that the FCC does not regulate
the spectrum within your home is clearly inaccurate. The FCC can prohibit
the manufacture or importation of noncompliant and notcertified devices.


Harold



--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2010\01\11@155855 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 16:37 -0400, M.L. wrote:
> I'd say that's likely.
> It's a natural progression from WiFi being available in many homes and
> many rural areas having bad cell phone coverage indoors.
> All new smart phones have WiFi. If you have an unlocked Nokia N900 you
> can very likely do VOIP on your phone right now. Probably some Android
> devices will be able to do it as well.

FWIW I use Skypeout regularly on my windows mobile phone over the cell
network without issue.

Still, it's a cludgy solution.

TTYL

2010\01\11@160205 by M.L.

flavicon
face
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Funny NYPD <funnynypdEraseMEspam.....yahoo.com> wrote:

> I cannot wait and see. Especially consider, there are now about 5 Million magicJack user. Sooner or later they will become the largest phone company in North America.


The times of land line phones are several limited. Be they real
land-lines or VOIP. Magicjack fills a small niche for now. I'd never
pay for it.
--
Martin K.

2010\01\11@160655 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 17:01 -0400, M.L. wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Funny NYPD <EraseMEfunnynypdspamyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I cannot wait and see. Especially consider, there are now about 5 Million magicJack user. Sooner or later they will become the largest phone company in North America.
>
>
> The times of land line phones are several limited. Be they real
> land-lines or VOIP. Magicjack fills a small niche for now. I'd never
> pay for it.

Unfortunately I'd had to agree.

For me, the fact that Magicjack requires a computer is a non-starter.

I used to have a landline, which I converted over to VOIP (vonage). I
realized I almost never used it, so I kept the number by porting to a
prepaid cell phone and canceled the rest.

Most of my telephony stuff is done on my normal cell over the cell
network (during free periods), anything more is done using skypeout on
my cell over the cell network. I just don't see what benefit being tied
to a computer gives me.

TTYL

2010\01\11@161636 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
Sublicensing spectrum from some wireless carrier for picocells seems
like it would be the 'right' way to go about it.  For inctance, all of
the cellular spectrum in Detroit is split up and owned by a myraid of
operators - and not just the big telecumincations giants.

Even if someone is actively using their slice, they may choose to
sublicense their signal at a low level for in home, single phone use.
Yes, technically it'll conflict with their signal, but that's where
the second part comes in to play.

Before a cell phone will connect to a tower, the tower's provider must
exist on the cellular phone's provider list - usually a few hundred
providers, in order of preference, on the phone.

Unless Magicjack is allocated a provider number, and gets every GSM
cellular provider to add them to their provider list, no phone will
connect with Magicjack's "tower" - or picocell device.

However, if they work with the hundreds of smaller spectrum owners,
they may license their spectrum, and their provider information  (set
up individually for each market depending on the lcoation of the
magicjack) and thus already exist on the provider list.

In turn they pay a fee to the provider, who would normally get a fee
for roaming minutes when a cell phone connects to their tower.

Still, that's a lot of work, and a ton of power for such a small, low
cost device.  It's attached to a computer, so it could merely be a
broadband GSM radio with some limited intelligence, while requireing
the computer ot operate the higher levels of the protocol, but even
then - it's just a lot of complexity to build out successfully.

Note that I have more experience with CDMA (and later) cellular
devices than GSM, so I may not be exact with some of the above, but
the main point should still be true - a GSM phone will not
register/connect with a provider that the main service provider does
not whitelist on the sim card, except in cases of emergency calls.

Although I'm interested to find out what they do with the ringing GSM
phone causing audio/speaker output problem - seems like a mini tower
would have that problem in spades...

-Adam

2010\01\11@172301 by Funny NYPD

picon face
I don't see why you need plug the device into the PC when you don't need it.
I heard some good recommendation about Skype out, what's the typical price on Skypeout?

Funny N.
Au Group Electronics, http://www.AuElectronics.com
http://www.AuElectronics.com/products
http://augroups.blogspot.com/




________________________________
From: Herbert Graf <RemoveMEhkgrafEraseMEspamEraseMEgmail.com>
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. <RemoveMEpiclistspam_OUTspamKILLspammit.edu>
Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 4:06:48 PM
Subject: Re: [OT]new magicJack innovation: a very small cellular tower for the home?

On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 17:01 -0400, M.L. wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Funny NYPD <RemoveMEfunnynypdTakeThisOuTspamspamyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I cannot wait and see. Especially consider, there are now about 5 Million magicJack user. Sooner or later they will become the largest phone company in North America.
>
>
> The times of land line phones are several limited. Be they real
> land-lines or VOIP. Magicjack fills a small niche for now. I'd never
> pay for it.

Unfortunately I'd had to agree.

For me, the fact that Magicjack requires a computer is a non-starter.

I used to have a landline, which I converted over to VOIP (vonage). I
realized I almost never used it, so I kept the number by porting to a
prepaid cell phone and canceled the rest.

Most of my telephony stuff is done on my normal cell over the cell
network (during free periods), anything more is done using skypeout on
my cell over the cell network. I just don't see what benefit being tied
to a computer gives me.

TTYL

2010\01\11@181638 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 14:22 -0800, Funny NYPD wrote:
> I don't see why you need plug the device into the PC when you don't need it.

Then how would incoming call cause your phone to ring?

Fact is to USE it you need a PC. Considering the other options out
there, and their prices, the MJ product just doesn't make sense for me.
Obviously not everyone is like me in their requirements.

> I heard some good recommendation about Skype out, what's the typical price on Skypeout?

Depends where you're calling, typically you're looking at ~$0.02/min for
most destinations. Cell phones are more for everywhere but NA. Toll free
numbers are actually free to call on SkypeOut.

They also have SkypeIn, have never bothered since I've got my cell for
incoming calls.

TTYL

2010\01\11@183820 by Funny NYPD

picon face
>Then how would incoming call cause your phone to ring?

If you have a cell phone, you can transfer incoming phone calls to your cell phone (a free service). And only plug the device in when you need dial a phone call out. I think the MJ is an enhancement device for cell phone or land-line phone, not a replacement.

For Skypeout, can you use PC? or only need a cell phone? I am confused.

>Depends where you're calling, typically you're looking at ~$0.02/min for
>most destinations.

That's a decent price for international phone calls. A few of my phone cards charge about 2-3cents/min for long distance calls. We have end up sending our Far East Supplier a MJ to avoid bi-directional long distance fee.

>They also have SkypeIn, have never bothered since I've got my cell for
>incoming calls.

Interesting, is there a phone number local people can make a phone call to you? How does it work?

Funny N.
Au Group Electronics, http://www.AuElectronics.com
http://www.AuElectronics.com/products
http://augroups.blogspot.com/




________________________________
From: Herbert Graf <EraseMEhkgrafspamspamspamBeGonegmail.com>
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. <RemoveMEpiclistKILLspamspammit.edu>
Sent: Mon, January 11, 2010 6:16:32 PM
Subject: Re: [OT]new magicJack innovation: a very small cellular tower for the home?

On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 14:22 -0800, Funny NYPD wrote:
> I don't see why you need plug the device into the PC when you don't need it.

Then how would incoming call cause your phone to ring?

Fact is to USE it you need a PC. Considering the other options out
there, and their prices, the MJ product just doesn't make sense for me.
Obviously not everyone is like me in their requirements.

> I heard some good recommendation about Skype out, what's the typical price on Skypeout?

Depends where you're calling, typically you're looking at ~$0.02/min for
most destinations. Cell phones are more for everywhere but NA. Toll free
numbers are actually free to call on SkypeOut.

They also have SkypeIn, have never bothered since I've got my cell for
incoming calls.

TTYL

2010\01\11@213832 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
Herbert Graf wrote:
> MJ product just doesn't make sense for me.

When I was on vacation in WA, someone tried to recruit me for ACN. The
company claims that their main product is a videophone. From what I can
tell, they make most of their money from recruiter fees ($500 per head).
Their presentation includes diagrams of how the pyramid scheme works.

What's interesting is that Donald Trump endorses them, saying that in the
future everyone will own an ACN videophone:

http://www.acninc.com/acn/us/trump.html

I would be more inclined to believe in it, if the phone could interface with
other webcam services.

Vitaliy

2010\01\12@094138 by M.L.

flavicon
face
On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 10:37 PM, Vitaliy <piclistSTOPspamspamspam_OUTmaksimov.org> wrote:
> Herbert Graf wrote:
>> MJ product just doesn't make sense for me.
>
> When I was on vacation in WA, someone tried to recruit me for ACN. The
> company claims that their main product is a videophone. From what I can
> tell, they make most of their money from recruiter fees ($500 per head).
> Their presentation includes diagrams of how the pyramid scheme works.
>
> What's interesting is that Donald Trump endorses them, saying that in the
> future everyone will own an ACN videophone:
>
> http://www.acninc.com/acn/us/trump.html
>
> I would be more inclined to believe in it, if the phone could interface with
> other webcam services.
>
> Vitaliy
>

Video phones are just like flying cars and vacations to the moon (IMO.)

--
Martin K.

2010\01\12@103829 by Herbert Graf

picon face
On Mon, 2010-01-11 at 15:37 -0800, Funny NYPD wrote:
> For Skypeout, can you use PC? or only need a cell phone? I am confused.

Either PC or app on your smart phone. I always use the app on my smart
phone.

> >They also have SkypeIn, have never bothered since I've got my cell for
> >incoming calls.
>
> Interesting, is there a phone number local people can make a phone call to you? How does it work?

You get a local number, it's only available for certain countries. As I
said I don't use it so I'm not sure of the details.

If you think about it, it is astonishing how telephony type
communication has changed in only the past ~20 years, everyone back then
had a landline and cell phones were REALLY expensive. Then pagers
started to get big. Now pretty much everyone has a cell, many don't have
a landline anymore. Soon enough I'm sure it'll all me IP.

TTYL

2010\01\12@142829 by Vitaliy

face
flavicon
face
M.L. wrote:
> Video phones are just like flying cars and vacations to the moon (IMO.)

Hm, I don't know. We use video chat on a PC to keep in touch with family, so
I personally see the value in being able to see the person(s) on the other
end of the line. It's conceivable that eventually a stand alone videophone
will become cheap enough to gain widespread acceptance. The communications
infrastructure is mostly in place, and mobile phones with videoconferencing
capabilities are already on the market.

I'm not saying everyone will be using it all the time, but for instance fax
machines were only used by businesses 30 years ago. Today most personal
copiers come with a fax option, and even though we don't use our fax on a
daily basis, we do use it occasionally.

The above is not meant any way to imply that ACN is not a scam. :)

Vitaliy

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2010 , 2011 only
- Today
- New search...