In article <ska8bl$mmt$1@dont-email.me>,
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 14/10/2021 21:54, charles wrote:
> >> Oh so you remember the wind up gramophone too?:-)
> > my parents had one.

> I am sure Greta Thunderbox will approve, nice and green.

no,, it was a dark brown wooden box.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 15/10/2021 09:51, BrightsideS9 wrote:
> i was thinking of further meaningn of green.

I would have put inverted commas if I meant that.

On 15/10/2021 08:59, MB wrote:
> On 15/10/2021 08:52, SH wrote:
>> wind up radios do actually exist, They were invented by a Trevor Bayliss
>> if my memory serves me right.....
>
> I know, I had one.
>
I've still got one.

Jim

On 15/10/2021 15:14, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 15/10/2021 08:59, MB wrote:
>> On 15/10/2021 08:52, SH wrote:

>>> wind up radios do actually exist, They were invented by a Trevor Bayliss
>>> if my memory serves me right.....
>>
>> I know, I had one.
>>
> I've still got one.

If actually clockwork, does it continue working while you wind it? (I.e
does it have a "going barrel" as most (but not all) clockwork clocks have?)

Wouldn't a hand cranked dynamo charging a battery be a better idea, like
the torches you can buy?

--
Max Demian

On Tuesday, 12 October 2021 at 11:33:09 UTC+1, Tweed wrote:
> R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, 11 October 2021 at 17:32:25 UTC+1, Pamela wrote:
> >> On 10:00 11 Oct 2021, Andy Burns said:
> >>>
> >>> Andy Burns wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> With luck BT will supply you with a voice re-injection frontplate,
> >>>> so you plug the green phone socket of the router to the green
> >>>> extensions socket of the faceplate, and your extensions will work,
> >>>> if you want a phone near the router then you'd need one of the old
> >>>> socket-doublers.
> >>>
> >>> <https://draytek.co.uk/information/blog/the-end-of-analogue-phone-lin
> >>> es-pt2>
> >>
> >> He writes:
> >>
> >> "People who have analogue phone service need reliable service and
> >> won't tolerate the type of quality which we put up with on a
> >> contended service."
> >>
> >> It will be interesting to see how well the workrounds (such as
> >> priority flags on packets) overcome the inherently asynchronous nature
> >> of TCP.
> >
> > It's the asynchronous nature of ADSL - it's in the name see!
> >
> > Nevertheless with a typical 50Mbps downlink and a 10Mbps uplink, there is
> > usually plenty of spare capacity on a domestic installation to carry a
> > couple of 64kbps voice channels.
> >
> >>
> >> I get unwelcome audio effects using Android to Android voice apps, so
> >> this needs to be markedly better than that if it's to replace POTS.
> >
> > That is your computer.
> >
> Asymmetric digital subscriber line, not asynchronous. Asymmetric as in the
> upload speed being much lower than the download.

Indeed - auto spell corrected!

On 15/10/2021 17:26, Max Demian wrote:
> On 15/10/2021 15:14, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 15/10/2021 08:59, MB wrote:
>>> On 15/10/2021 08:52, SH wrote:
>
>>>> wind up radios do actually exist, They were invented by a Trevor Bayliss
>>>> if my memory serves me right.....
>>>
>>> I know, I had one.
>>>
>> I've still got one.
>
> If actually clockwork, does it continue working while you wind it? (I.e
> does it have a "going barrel" as most (but not all) clockwork clocks have?)
>
The description of the earlier models indicated that it could be wound
whilst the radio was playing without interrupting the radio. That would
be a necessity, because the spring was supposed to provide a fixed
period of time to listen and if you wanted to listen to a programme
longer than that, it would be necessary to rewind it part way through.
I pictured an arrangement like a wind-up gramophone, but I never saw a
clockwork radio to see how it worked in practice.

> Wouldn't a hand cranked dynamo charging a battery be a better idea, like
> the torches you can buy?
>
Mine is the later one, with hand cranked dynamo. Cranking it is hard
work, but luckily it also came with a wall wart that can charge the
battery without turning the dynamo.

Jim

On 11/10/2021 17:37, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 15:53, Tweed wrote:
>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2021 15:04, Wilf wrote:
>>>> Actually, I don't know that it is "their decision".  I think it has
>>>> been
>>>> mandated by Ofcom.  But in any case, I'm pretty sure that when the time
>>>> comes for any of us to change, we will get the necessary information
>>>> and
>>>> be supplied with any required equipment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am sure that will have to happen.  There are many people with even
>>> less technical knowledge than most us.  Some might have broadband but
>>> only use it occasionally.
>>>
>>> Most want a phone in several rooms around the house.  I certainly do not
>>> want to carry a mobile phone around, mine does not get used much and
>>> mainly for the horrible verification system when you make any online
>>> payment.
>>>
>>> The mobile phone sits on top of some books in the bookcase and is often
>>> forgotten when I go out!
>>>
>>> BT are making the change for their benefit, we do not get any benefit
>>> and a degradation in service, the worst being we not long have a phone
>>> when the power goes off and have to keep the router always powered.
>>>
>>> I suspect there are going to lots of letters to MPs when as they start
>>> to changeover.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You can back feed your router’s analogue phone output into your existing
>> extension wiring. You can even get a special replacement master socket
>> faceplate if you want to do it neatly.
>
> That's what I was going to attempt, so it's good to know that should work.
>
> Thanks to everyone who has commented

Just as a follow-up, I was ported over to Digital Voice yesterday, only
a week after they said within 48 hours. The main phone worked fine
plugged directly into the back of the Hub2 but the only way I could get
a dial tone on the other phone was to use a splitter into the green
socket on the Hub and attach both to that.

So, I could have laid 40 ft of cable, which I didn't have, to put the
second phone back where it was. But I didn't fancy doing that, so
phoned BT asking for what I thought I needed after some investigation,
which was a BT Digital Voice Adapter (cost £14.98 which I didn't fancy
paying). That plugs into the mains and the second phone and
communicates wirelessly with the hub. Unfortunately, and with some lack
of forethought, they didn't seem to have any in stock, but would have
let me have one for no charge.

No matter, said the helpful chap, we'll send you a new, free,
super-duper phone instead which you pair with the Hub and can use all
over the house.

Sounds like a result.

On 16/10/2021 09:30, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 17:37, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 11/10/2021 15:53, Tweed wrote:
>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/10/2021 15:04, Wilf wrote:
>>>>> Actually, I don't know that it is "their decision".  I think it has
>>>>> been
>>>>> mandated by Ofcom.  But in any case, I'm pretty sure that when the
>>>>> time
>>>>> comes for any of us to change, we will get the necessary
>>>>> information and
>>>>> be supplied with any required equipment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am sure that will have to happen.  There are many people with even
>>>> less technical knowledge than most us.  Some might have broadband but
>>>> only use it occasionally.
>>>>
>>>> Most want a phone in several rooms around the house.  I certainly do
>>>> not
>>>> want to carry a mobile phone around, mine does not get used much and
>>>> mainly for the horrible verification system when you make any online
>>>> payment.
>>>>
>>>> The mobile phone sits on top of some books in the bookcase and is often
>>>> forgotten when I go out!
>>>>
>>>> BT are making the change for their benefit, we do not get any benefit
>>>> and a degradation in service, the worst being we not long have a phone
>>>> when the power goes off and have to keep the router always powered.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect there are going to lots of letters to MPs when as they start
>>>> to changeover.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You can back feed your router’s analogue phone output into your existing
>>> extension wiring. You can even get a special replacement master socket
>>> faceplate if you want to do it neatly.
>>
>> That's what I was going to attempt, so it's good to know that should
>> work.
>>
>> Thanks to everyone who has commented
>
> Just as a follow-up, I was ported over to Digital Voice yesterday, only
> a week after they said within 48 hours.  The main phone worked fine
> plugged directly into the back of the Hub2 but the only way I could get
> a dial tone on the other phone was to use a splitter into the green
> socket on the Hub and attach both to that.
>
> So, I could have laid 40 ft of cable, which I didn't have, to put the
> second phone back where it was.  But I didn't fancy doing that, so
> phoned BT asking for what I thought I needed after some investigation,
> which was a BT Digital Voice Adapter (cost £14.98 which I didn't fancy
> paying).  That plugs into the mains and the second phone and
> communicates wirelessly with the hub.  Unfortunately, and with some lack
> of forethought, they didn't seem to have any in stock, but would have
> let me have one for no charge.
>
> No matter, said the helpful chap, we'll send you a new, free,
> super-duper phone instead which you pair with the Hub and can use all
> over the house.
>
> Sounds like a result.

AIUI everyone gets a choice of adapter or free phone. See link I posted
before (below). Bad show if they did not tell you this before you were
done.

<https://shop.bt.com/other-pages/bt-customer-offers/bt-digital-voice-customer?ReferrerID=BTDV&utm_source=btcom&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=bt_digital_voice&utm_content=BTDV>

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 16/10/2021 13:09, Robin wrote:
> On 16/10/2021 09:30, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 11/10/2021 17:37, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2021 15:53, Tweed wrote:
>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/10/2021 15:04, Wilf wrote:
>>>>>> Actually, I don't know that it is "their decision".  I think it
>>>>>> has been
>>>>>> mandated by Ofcom.  But in any case, I'm pretty sure that when the
>>>>>> time
>>>>>> comes for any of us to change, we will get the necessary
>>>>>> information and
>>>>>> be supplied with any required equipment.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am sure that will have to happen.  There are many people with even
>>>>> less technical knowledge than most us.  Some might have broadband but
>>>>> only use it occasionally.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most want a phone in several rooms around the house.  I certainly
>>>>> do not
>>>>> want to carry a mobile phone around, mine does not get used much and
>>>>> mainly for the horrible verification system when you make any online
>>>>> payment.
>>>>>
>>>>> The mobile phone sits on top of some books in the bookcase and is
>>>>> often
>>>>> forgotten when I go out!
>>>>>
>>>>> BT are making the change for their benefit, we do not get any benefit
>>>>> and a degradation in service, the worst being we not long have a phone
>>>>> when the power goes off and have to keep the router always powered.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect there are going to lots of letters to MPs when as they start
>>>>> to changeover.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You can back feed your router’s analogue phone output into your
>>>> existing
>>>> extension wiring. You can even get a special replacement master socket
>>>> faceplate if you want to do it neatly.
>>>
>>> That's what I was going to attempt, so it's good to know that should
>>> work.
>>>
>>> Thanks to everyone who has commented
>>
>> Just as a follow-up, I was ported over to Digital Voice yesterday,
>> only a week after they said within 48 hours.  The main phone worked
>> fine plugged directly into the back of the Hub2 but the only way I
>> could get a dial tone on the other phone was to use a splitter into
>> the green socket on the Hub and attach both to that.
>>
>> So, I could have laid 40 ft of cable, which I didn't have, to put the
>> second phone back where it was.  But I didn't fancy doing that, so
>> phoned BT asking for what I thought I needed after some investigation,
>> which was a BT Digital Voice Adapter (cost £14.98 which I didn't fancy
>> paying).  That plugs into the mains and the second phone and
>> communicates wirelessly with the hub.  Unfortunately, and with some
>> lack of forethought, they didn't seem to have any in stock, but would
>> have let me have one for no charge.
>>
>> No matter, said the helpful chap, we'll send you a new, free,
>> super-duper phone instead which you pair with the Hub and can use all
>> over the house.
>>
>> Sounds like a result.
>
> AIUI everyone gets a choice of adapter or free phone.  See link I posted
> before (below).  Bad show if they did not tell you this before you were
> done.
>
> <https://shop.bt.com/other-pages/bt-customer-offers/bt-digital-voice-customer?ReferrerID=BTDV&utm_source=btcom&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=bt_digital_voice&utm_content=BTDV>

Except that, when I enter my landline number into the box, it says I'm
not eligible. Why, though, it doesn't deign to inform.

On 16/10/2021 13:34, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 16/10/2021 13:09, Robin wrote:
>> On 16/10/2021 09:30, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2021 17:37, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> On 11/10/2021 15:53, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/10/2021 15:04, Wilf wrote:
>>>>>>> Actually, I don't know that it is "their decision".  I think it
>>>>>>> has been
>>>>>>> mandated by Ofcom.  But in any case, I'm pretty sure that when
>>>>>>> the time
>>>>>>> comes for any of us to change, we will get the necessary
>>>>>>> information and
>>>>>>> be supplied with any required equipment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am sure that will have to happen.  There are many people with even
>>>>>> less technical knowledge than most us.  Some might have broadband but
>>>>>> only use it occasionally.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most want a phone in several rooms around the house.  I certainly
>>>>>> do not
>>>>>> want to carry a mobile phone around, mine does not get used much and
>>>>>> mainly for the horrible verification system when you make any online
>>>>>> payment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The mobile phone sits on top of some books in the bookcase and is
>>>>>> often
>>>>>> forgotten when I go out!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BT are making the change for their benefit, we do not get any benefit
>>>>>> and a degradation in service, the worst being we not long have a
>>>>>> phone
>>>>>> when the power goes off and have to keep the router always powered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect there are going to lots of letters to MPs when as they
>>>>>> start
>>>>>> to changeover.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You can back feed your router’s analogue phone output into your
>>>>> existing
>>>>> extension wiring. You can even get a special replacement master socket
>>>>> faceplate if you want to do it neatly.
>>>>
>>>> That's what I was going to attempt, so it's good to know that should
>>>> work.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to everyone who has commented
>>>
>>> Just as a follow-up, I was ported over to Digital Voice yesterday,
>>> only a week after they said within 48 hours.  The main phone worked
>>> fine plugged directly into the back of the Hub2 but the only way I
>>> could get a dial tone on the other phone was to use a splitter into
>>> the green socket on the Hub and attach both to that.
>>>
>>> So, I could have laid 40 ft of cable, which I didn't have, to put the
>>> second phone back where it was.  But I didn't fancy doing that, so
>>> phoned BT asking for what I thought I needed after some
>>> investigation, which was a BT Digital Voice Adapter (cost £14.98
>>> which I didn't fancy paying).  That plugs into the mains and the
>>> second phone and communicates wirelessly with the hub.
>>> Unfortunately, and with some lack of forethought, they didn't seem to
>>> have any in stock, but would have let me have one for no charge.
>>>
>>> No matter, said the helpful chap, we'll send you a new, free,
>>> super-duper phone instead which you pair with the Hub and can use all
>>> over the house.
>>>
>>> Sounds like a result.
>>
>> AIUI everyone gets a choice of adapter or free phone.  See link I
>> posted before (below).  Bad show if they did not tell you this before
>> you were done.
>>
>> <https://shop.bt.com/other-pages/bt-customer-offers/bt-digital-voice-customer?ReferrerID=BTDV&utm_source=btcom&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=bt_digital_voice&utm_content=BTDV>
>
>
> Except that, when I enter my landline number into the box, it says I'm
> not eligible.  Why, though, it doesn't deign to inform.
>
Ditto

"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jgofmgl0rhvktn35eea2ef83fpdsrccvs3@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 00:14:03 +0100, BrightsideS9
> <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 16:43:41 +0100, Roderick Stewart
>><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 12:35:03 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>BT have said they are not keeping their POTS (copper wire) service
>>>>beyond
>>>>2025. They won't make exceptions for 'luddites'.
>>>
>>>That might seem like a long time, but I reckon most people will know
>>>nothing about this until the day it happens.
>>>
>>>Which means that as well as millions of people with computers that are
>>>insecure because Windows 10 is no longer supported and they can't be
>>>upgraded to Windows 11 (more than 50% of them can't apparently), their
>>>phones won't work either. 2025 will be a busy year.
>>>
>>
>>Sadly mine cannot be upgraded, wrong AMD [processor. Its done 14
>>years
>
> Same here. Mine's the latest one on Microsoft's list that they won't
> support. If it was the next one - a 3400G instead of a 2400G - then
> that would be fine, but not the older one. I only built this computer
> a few years ago and its performance is more than good enough for my
> needs, so I reckon it has potentially many more years of life left in
> it except for Microsoft's apparently arbitrary decision.

which arbitrary decision is that?

surely MS are going to support W10 for years for those people who can't
(don't want to) upgrade

As they have also done previously

"Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:sk6eco$q3l$1@dont-email.me...
> tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Tony Gamble" <tonygamble@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>> news:isnib4FngujU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> "My HUB6 has not telephone socket so they will presumably to replace it?
>>>
>>> I think there is going a massive reaction against this change because
>>> most
>>> people have a phone that was installed many years ago, they do not want
>>> to
>>> have start messing around with it. If BT want to transfer them to
>>> digital
>>> then it is up to BT to do any work necessary though I would prefer to
>>> stay
>>> on a land line connection because I don't want to start running mains
>>> extension leads around the house or having to an extra mains socket
>>> fitted. "
>>>
>>> Most of the posts have been about the technicalities so far.
>>>
>>> I wonder about the legality. I have a contract with BT for two
>>> landlines.
>>> One is for our normal phone and the other is the one I am obliged to
>>> have
>>> so my burglar alarm can phone a monitoring station.
>>
>> Yes we have a phone here which is the lift alarm service
>>
>> by law this cannot be a mobile phone and must be a fixed landline
>> (presumably because it is line powered and thus "always on")
>>
> Not true
>
> <https://www.leia.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/upload_image/file/Lift%20owner%20news%20-%20Telephones%20lines%20and%20lifts.pdf>
>
> There has been a requirement to fit alarm devices to lifts since 1 July
> 1999 under the Lifts Regulations to allow trapped passengers to call for
> help. Similar alarm devices have also been fitted to many new enclosed
> lifting platforms and many older lifts as an important improvement for the
> safety of passengers.
> To meet this requirement, many lift companies supply an auto-dialler to BS
> EN 81-28 (the standard for new alarm systems) designed to work on a "plain
> old telephone system" line to meet this requirement. Some alarm devices
> might use the line voltage to power them so avoiding the use of a power
> supply and backup supply. Some alarm devices might need a dedicated line
> to
> allow identification of the lift with the alarm.
> However, there is no requirement to connect alarm equipment only to a
> hardwired telephone line connected to the public switched telephone
> network. Provided that the alarm communication and management requirements
> are met then communication means can be, for example: radio, digital phone
> network, optical, hard wired within a building or site to a permanently
> manned rescue service.

well yes

I accept that if you want to run you own monitored system you don't need to
connect a LL

but for a lift in a domestic property (which is where my experience as a
user lies, I suppose I should have made that clear) that is impractical

so AIUI a fixed LL connection is the only option that you have

"Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:18be9d3f-8a4a-f79a-b631-60a36f0b5fe9@outlook.com...
> On 14/10/2021 10:31, Tweed wrote:
>> Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 14/10/2021 09:16, Tony Gamble wrote:
>>>> Fast forward to 2025 and wonder if DECT phones will be in as short a
>>>> supply as 2021 turkeys?
>>>>
>>> No, because the vast majority of the population will have ditched
>>> having, or needing 'that badly' a 'landline' phone by then.
>>>
>>
>> It wouldn’t surprise me if BT and the other major suppliers offer a hub
>> with an integrated DECT base station and perhaps the offer of a handset
>> for
>> very little extra money. Fritzbox routers already offer integrated DECT
>> base stations, so it’s not exactly a bleeding edge idea. A single DECT
>> handset is around £20. A lot easier than faffing around with extension
>> wiring. This will cover the vast bulk of users who still wish to have a
>> landline.
>>
>
> The internet is a wonderful place where it's possible to see that BT have
> made very clear what they are offering currently - including a free phone
> or a free socket that plugs in anywhere and connects wirelessly to the
> router
>
> <https://shop.bt.com/other-pages/bt-customer-offers/bt-digital-voice-customer?ReferrerID=BTDV&utm_source=btcom&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=bt_digital_voice&utm_content=BTDV>
>
>

I'm personally not persuaded that the existence of a web page that only you
have discovered counts as

"very clear"

"Tim+" <tim.downie@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:210313701.655919410.112079.tim.downie-gmail.com@news.individual.net...
> Tony Gamble <tonygamble@compuserve.com> wrote:
>> How rude Tim.
>>
>> I am not whining non-stop.
>
> You’ve been reassured over an over again but seem determined That This Can
> Not Possibly Work.

AISI it isn't a case of "not possibly work"

It's a case of not being informed

People have suggested that BT inform everybody that they are entitled to the
offer of a free whatever, to make the new line phone work for them

but it is clear from Norman's post that he wasn't so informed

and that he had to seek out information from elsewhere as to how to make
this happen.

and that had he not done that, he would have just been left with a not
working system

No amount of stating "BT sorts this out for you" changes that

tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:jgofmgl0rhvktn35eea2ef83fpdsrccvs3@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 00:14:03 +0100, BrightsideS9
>> <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 16:43:41 +0100, Roderick Stewart
>>> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 12:35:03 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BT have said they are not keeping their POTS (copper wire) service
>>>>> beyond
>>>>> 2025. They won't make exceptions for 'luddites'.
>>>>
>>>> That might seem like a long time, but I reckon most people will know
>>>> nothing about this until the day it happens.
>>>>
>>>> Which means that as well as millions of people with computers that are
>>>> insecure because Windows 10 is no longer supported and they can't be
>>>> upgraded to Windows 11 (more than 50% of them can't apparently), their
>>>> phones won't work either. 2025 will be a busy year.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sadly mine cannot be upgraded, wrong AMD [processor. Its done 14
>>> years
>>
>> Same here. Mine's the latest one on Microsoft's list that they won't
>> support. If it was the next one - a 3400G instead of a 2400G - then
>> that would be fine, but not the older one. I only built this computer
>> a few years ago and its performance is more than good enough for my
>> needs, so I reckon it has potentially many more years of life left in
>> it except for Microsoft's apparently arbitrary decision.
>
> which arbitrary decision is that?
>
> surely MS are going to support W10 for years for those people who can't
> (don't want to) upgrade
>
> As they have also done previously
>
>
Current end of life date for Windows 10 variants that consumers gave access
to is 2025. Various Enterprise versions go on longer.

On 17/10/2021 08:32, tim... wrote:
>
>
> "Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:jgofmgl0rhvktn35eea2ef83fpdsrccvs3@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 00:14:03 +0100, BrightsideS9
>> <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 16:43:41 +0100, Roderick Stewart
>>> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 12:35:03 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BT have said they are not keeping their POTS (copper wire) service
>>>>> beyond
>>>>> 2025.  They won't make exceptions for 'luddites'.
>>>>
>>>> That might seem like a long time, but I reckon most people will know
>>>> nothing about this until the day it happens.
>>>>
>>>> Which means that as well as millions of people with computers that are
>>>> insecure because Windows 10 is no longer supported and they can't be
>>>> upgraded to Windows 11 (more than 50% of them can't apparently), their
>>>> phones won't work either. 2025 will be a busy year.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sadly mine cannot  be upgraded, wrong AMD [processor. Its done 14
>>> years
>>
>> Same here. Mine's the latest one on Microsoft's list that they won't
>> support. If it was the next one - a 3400G instead of a 2400G - then
>> that would be fine, but not the older one. I only built this computer
>> a few years ago and its performance is more than good enough for my
>> needs, so I reckon it has potentially many more years of life left in
>> it except for Microsoft's apparently arbitrary decision.
>
> which arbitrary decision is that?
>
> surely MS are going to support W10 for years for those people who can't
> (don't want to) upgrade
>

+3.99

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:sk6eco$q3l$1@dont-email.me...
>> tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Tony Gamble" <tonygamble@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>>> news:isnib4FngujU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> "My HUB6 has not telephone socket so they will presumably to replace it?
>>>>
>>>> I think there is going a massive reaction against this change because
>>>> most
>>>> people have a phone that was installed many years ago, they do not want
>>>> to
>>>> have start messing around with it. If BT want to transfer them to
>>>> digital
>>>> then it is up to BT to do any work necessary though I would prefer to
>>>> stay
>>>> on a land line connection because I don't want to start running mains
>>>> extension leads around the house or having to an extra mains socket
>>>> fitted. "
>>>>
>>>> Most of the posts have been about the technicalities so far.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder about the legality. I have a contract with BT for two
>>>> landlines.
>>>> One is for our normal phone and the other is the one I am obliged to
>>>> have
>>>> so my burglar alarm can phone a monitoring station.
>>>
>>> Yes we have a phone here which is the lift alarm service
>>>
>>> by law this cannot be a mobile phone and must be a fixed landline
>>> (presumably because it is line powered and thus "always on")
>>>
>> Not true
>>
>> <https://www.leia.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/upload_image/file/Lift%20owner%20news%20-%20Telephones%20lines%20and%20lifts.pdf>
>>
>> There has been a requirement to fit alarm devices to lifts since 1 July
>> 1999 under the Lifts Regulations to allow trapped passengers to call for
>> help. Similar alarm devices have also been fitted to many new enclosed
>> lifting platforms and many older lifts as an important improvement for the
>> safety of passengers.
>> To meet this requirement, many lift companies supply an auto-dialler to BS
>> EN 81-28 (the standard for new alarm systems) designed to work on a "plain
>> old telephone system" line to meet this requirement. Some alarm devices
>> might use the line voltage to power them so avoiding the use of a power
>> supply and backup supply. Some alarm devices might need a dedicated line
>> to
>> allow identification of the lift with the alarm.
>> However, there is no requirement to connect alarm equipment only to a
>> hardwired telephone line connected to the public switched telephone
>> network. Provided that the alarm communication and management requirements
>> are met then communication means can be, for example: radio, digital phone
>> network, optical, hard wired within a building or site to a permanently
>> manned rescue service.
>
> well yes
>
> I accept that if you want to run you own monitored system you don't need to
> connect a LL
>
> but for a lift in a domestic property (which is where my experience as a
> user lies, I suppose I should have made that clear) that is impractical
>
> so AIUI a fixed LL connection is the only option that you have
>
>
There will be any number of retrofit alarm systems that use the mobile
network and/or a broadband connection. It’s a known technology.

Finland dumped landlines in rural areas almost a decade ago now.

Kone, one of the world’s largest lift manufacturers, is Finnish.

On 17/10/2021 08:42, tim... wrote:
>
>
> "Robin" <rbw@outlook.com> wrote in message
> news:18be9d3f-8a4a-f79a-b631-60a36f0b5fe9@outlook.com...
>> On 14/10/2021 10:31, Tweed wrote:
>>> Mark Carver <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 14/10/2021 09:16, Tony Gamble wrote:
>>>>> Fast forward to 2025 and wonder if DECT phones will be in as short a
>>>>> supply as 2021 turkeys?
>>>>>
>>>> No, because the vast majority of the population will have ditched
>>>> having, or needing 'that badly'  a 'landline' phone by then.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It wouldn’t surprise me if BT and the other major suppliers offer a hub
>>> with an integrated DECT base station and perhaps the offer of a
>>> handset for
>>> very little extra money. Fritzbox routers already offer integrated DECT
>>> base stations, so it’s not exactly a bleeding edge idea. A single DECT
>>> handset is around £20. A lot easier than faffing around with extension
>>> wiring. This will cover the vast bulk of users who still wish to have a
>>> landline.
>>>
>>
>> The internet is a wonderful place where it's possible to see that BT
>> have made very clear what they are offering currently - including a
>> free phone or a free socket that plugs in anywhere and connects
>> wirelessly to the router
>>
>> <https://shop.bt.com/other-pages/bt-customer-offers/bt-digital-voice-customer?ReferrerID=BTDV&utm_source=btcom&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=bt_digital_voice&utm_content=BTDV>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I'm personally not persuaded that the existence of a web page that only
> you have discovered counts as
>
> "very clear"
>

I have no idea what went wrong with Norman's switch but others have had
emails and letters telling them about the free phone/adapter available.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 17/10/2021 08:32, tim... wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:jgofmgl0rhvktn35eea2ef83fpdsrccvs3@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 00:14:03 +0100, BrightsideS9
>>> <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 16:43:41 +0100, Roderick Stewart
>>>> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 12:35:03 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> BT have said they are not keeping their POTS (copper wire) service
>>>>>> beyond
>>>>>> 2025.  They won't make exceptions for 'luddites'.
>>>>>
>>>>> That might seem like a long time, but I reckon most people will know
>>>>> nothing about this until the day it happens.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which means that as well as millions of people with computers that are
>>>>> insecure because Windows 10 is no longer supported and they can't be
>>>>> upgraded to Windows 11 (more than 50% of them can't apparently), their
>>>>> phones won't work either. 2025 will be a busy year.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sadly mine cannot  be upgraded, wrong AMD [processor. Its done 14
>>>> years
>>>
>>> Same here. Mine's the latest one on Microsoft's list that they won't
>>> support. If it was the next one - a 3400G instead of a 2400G - then
>>> that would be fine, but not the older one. I only built this computer
>>> a few years ago and its performance is more than good enough for my
>>> needs, so I reckon it has potentially many more years of life left in
>>> it except for Microsoft's apparently arbitrary decision.
>>
>> which arbitrary decision is that?
>>
>> surely MS are going to support W10 for years for those people who can't
>> (don't want to) upgrade
>>
>
> +3.99
>
>
Dates from Microsoft

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/products/windows-10-home-and-pro

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/products/windows-10-enterprise-and-education

Now, I suspect reality will catch up with Microsoft, but you’ll probably
only get a year or two beyond those dates.

On 17/10/2021 09:24, Tweed wrote:
> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 17/10/2021 08:32, tim... wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:jgofmgl0rhvktn35eea2ef83fpdsrccvs3@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 00:14:03 +0100, BrightsideS9
>>>> <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 16:43:41 +0100, Roderick Stewart
>>>>> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 12:35:03 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BT have said they are not keeping their POTS (copper wire) service
>>>>>>> beyond
>>>>>>> 2025.  They won't make exceptions for 'luddites'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That might seem like a long time, but I reckon most people will know
>>>>>> nothing about this until the day it happens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which means that as well as millions of people with computers that are
>>>>>> insecure because Windows 10 is no longer supported and they can't be
>>>>>> upgraded to Windows 11 (more than 50% of them can't apparently), their
>>>>>> phones won't work either. 2025 will be a busy year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sadly mine cannot  be upgraded, wrong AMD [processor. Its done 14
>>>>> years
>>>>
>>>> Same here. Mine's the latest one on Microsoft's list that they won't
>>>> support. If it was the next one - a 3400G instead of a 2400G - then
>>>> that would be fine, but not the older one. I only built this computer
>>>> a few years ago and its performance is more than good enough for my
>>>> needs, so I reckon it has potentially many more years of life left in
>>>> it except for Microsoft's apparently arbitrary decision.
>>>
>>> which arbitrary decision is that?
>>>
>>> surely MS are going to support W10 for years for those people who can't
>>> (don't want to) upgrade
>>>
>>
>> +3.99
>>
>>
> Dates from Microsoft
>
>
> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/products/windows-10-home-and-pro
>
> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/products/windows-10-enterprise-and-education
>
> Now, I suspect reality will catch up with Microsoft, but you’ll probably
> only get a year or two beyond those dates.
>

yes - and clearly I should have explained that 3.99 is the number of
years from today that MS will support W10 home/pro for those people who
can't (don't want to) upgrade

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 17/10/2021 08:32, tim... wrote:
> which arbitrary decision is that?
>
> surely MS are going to support W10 for years for those people who can't
> (don't want to) upgrade
>
> As they have also done previously

There are probably plenty of people who still use Windows XP without any
problems in places with no connection to the outside world.

At work we had two Windows 3.1 (???) laptops that we used for
programming the radios in some emergency service vehicles. The software
would not run reliably on any later versions despite many people
claiming to have found ways to make it run.

On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 09:57:03 +0100
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>On 17/10/2021 08:32, tim... wrote:
>> which arbitrary decision is that?
>>
>> surely MS are going to support W10 for years for those people who can't
>> (don't want to) upgrade
>>
>> As they have also done previously
>
>There are probably plenty of people who still use Windows XP without any
>problems in places with no connection to the outside world.
>
>At work we had two Windows 3.1 (???) laptops that we used for
>programming the radios in some emergency service vehicles. The software
>would not run reliably on any later versions despite many people
>claiming to have found ways to make it run.

Thats not clever. The OS isn't the problem , its the hardware. If those
laptops died you'd be hard pressed to find something else to install 3.1 on
as it certainly won't be installing on modern hardware because even if someone
did get it working with UEFI it won't recognise a SATA disk never mind PCIe.

In article <skgof3$mnk$1@dont-email.me>,
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 17/10/2021 08:32, tim... wrote:
> > which arbitrary decision is that?
> >
> > surely MS are going to support W10 for years for those people who can't
> > (don't want to) upgrade
> >
> > As they have also done previously

> There are probably plenty of people who still use Windows XP without any
> problems in places with no connection to the outside world.

> At work we had two Windows 3.1 (???) laptops that we used for
> programming the radios in some emergency service vehicles. The software
> would not run reliably on any later versions despite many people
> claiming to have found ways to make it run.

a few years ago, I inherited a DOS database (bought in 1998) with all the
membership information for a charity. The previous holder had just died. An
old XP laptop was able to run it so that I could get the data off.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 17/10/2021 10:26, RadicalRabbit@theburrow.co.uk wrote:
> Thats not clever. The OS isn't the problem , its the hardware. If those
> laptops died you'd be hard pressed to find something else to install 3.1 on
> as it certainly won't be installing on modern hardware because even if someone
> did get it working with UEFI it won't recognise a SATA disk never mind PCIe.

One did die, we just got IT to send a replacement.

There was not much choice the software did not work on later operating
systems, it was supplied as part of the contract so out of our control.

<RadicalRabbit@theburrow.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Oct 2021 09:57:03 +0100
> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 17/10/2021 08:32, tim... wrote:
>>> which arbitrary decision is that?
>>>
>>> surely MS are going to support W10 for years for those people who can't
>>> (don't want to) upgrade
>>>
>>> As they have also done previously
>>
>> There are probably plenty of people who still use Windows XP without any
>> problems in places with no connection to the outside world.
>>
>> At work we had two Windows 3.1 (???) laptops that we used for
>> programming the radios in some emergency service vehicles. The software
>> would not run reliably on any later versions despite many people
>> claiming to have found ways to make it run.
>
> Thats not clever. The OS isn't the problem , its the hardware. If those
> laptops died you'd be hard pressed to find something else to install 3.1 on
> as it certainly won't be installing on modern hardware because even if someone
> did get it working with UEFI it won't recognise a SATA disk never mind PCIe.
>
>

VMWare is your friend here.