> Please excuse the length of this post but I think it important to set the > tone, As you will see Laipac are either not returning emails or trying to > fob me off with lame suggestions. > In the spirit of the original post I expect that Laipac's actions > speak for > themself. > > regards > > Lee McLaren To be fair what reply did you expect after your last message? "Your sugestion that the voice can be digitised with an external codec is not acceptable. Please refer this to your manager." They stated how to get voice across the link, you said you didn't like that and that's it, I'm not sure what more could be said. What more do you want from them? What will "the manager" do for you? If you want something specific you should state what it is you want, and not go on a tirade about how poor their service is. Now, do I think that advertising it as voice capable is accurate? Well maybe, while it requires a codec to do, your statement that: "Data is NOT voice. Otherwise every wireless data module would be adverstise as voice." Is blatantly false. Voice requires a certain amount of bandwidth to be at all understood, and MOST wireless modules simply aren't capable of anywhere near that bandwidth. These modules are however, therefore while what they say may not be 100% accurate and 100% to YOUR liking, it is not blatantly false. FWIW I think they should change the site, that said, having been in the shoes of a customer service rep for a company, emails like yours would receive a worse response then what they have supplied you. Remember, sugar works better then vinegar... Oh, and for the record, I have NO affiliation with Laipac, I'm just a happy customer, and my experience with them was stellar, the people being some of the nicest I have ever dealt with. TTYL ---------------------------------- Herbert's PIC Stuff: http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/ -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.