Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.


aus+uk / uk.railway / Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

SubjectAuthor
* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andGraeme Wall
+* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and LatimerChristopher A. Lee
|+* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andGraeme Wall
||+* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andGB
|||+* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andMuttley
||||`* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andGB
|||| `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andNY
||||  +* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andTweed
||||  |+* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRecliner
||||  ||+* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andGB
||||  |||+- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andAnna Noyd-Dryver
||||  |||`- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andhounslow3@yahoo.co.uk
||||  ||`* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andCharles Ellson
||||  || `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andGraham Nye
||||  ||  +- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andCharles Ellson
||||  ||  +- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andGraeme Wall
||||  ||  `- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |+* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  ||+* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andGraeme Wall
||||  |||`* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  ||| `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andGraeme Wall
||||  |||  `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||   `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andGraeme Wall
||||  |||    `- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  ||+* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andtony sayer
||||  |||+* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  ||||+* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andNY
||||  |||||`- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  ||||`* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andtony sayer
||||  |||| `- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andCertes
||||  |||`* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andSam Wilson
||||  ||| `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||  `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andSam Wilson
||||  |||   +* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||   |+* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andCertes
||||  |||   ||+- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||   ||+* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andtony sayer
||||  |||   |||`* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andCertes
||||  |||   ||| `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||   |||  `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andKen
||||  |||   |||   `- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||   ||`* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andSam Wilson
||||  |||   || `- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andCertes
||||  |||   |`* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andSam Wilson
||||  |||   | `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||   |  `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andSam Wilson
||||  |||   |   `- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||   `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andMuttley
||||  |||    +* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||    |+* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andTweed
||||  |||    ||+* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||    |||+* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andTweed
||||  |||    ||||`* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||    |||| `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andMuttley
||||  |||    ||||  `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||    ||||   `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andColinR
||||  |||    ||||    `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andMuttley
||||  |||    ||||     +* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andCharles Ellson
||||  |||    ||||     |`* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||    ||||     | `- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andCharles Ellson
||||  |||    ||||     `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andAnna Noyd-Dryver
||||  |||    ||||      `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||    ||||       `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andAnna Noyd-Dryver
||||  |||    ||||        `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||    ||||         `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andAnna Noyd-Dryver
||||  |||    ||||          +* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRolf Mantel
||||  |||    ||||          |+- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andChris J Dixon
||||  |||    ||||          |`* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andGraeme Wall
||||  |||    ||||          | `- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRolf Mantel
||||  |||    ||||          `- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||    |||`- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andNigel Emery
||||  |||    ||`* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andMuttley
||||  |||    || `- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andtony sayer
||||  |||    |`* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andMuttley
||||  |||    | `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||    |  `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andMuttley
||||  |||    |   +- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andCharles Ellson
||||  |||    |   `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||    |    `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andCharles Ellson
||||  |||    |     `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||    |      `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andCharles Ellson
||||  |||    |       `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||    |        `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andCharles Ellson
||||  |||    |         `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||    |          `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andCharles Ellson
||||  |||    |           `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||    |            `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andMuttley
||||  |||    |             `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andSam Wilson
||||  |||    |              +* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||    |              |`* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andSam Wilson
||||  |||    |              | +* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andCharles Ellson
||||  |||    |              | |`- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andSam Wilson
||||  |||    |              | `- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||    |              `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andMuttley
||||  |||    |               +* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andSam Wilson
||||  |||    |               |+* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||    |               ||`* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andMuttley
||||  |||    |               || `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||    |               ||  `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andTweed
||||  |||    |               ||   `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andMuttley
||||  |||    |               ||    `- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andRoland Perry
||||  |||    |               |+* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andMuttley
||||  |||    |               |`* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andMarland
||||  |||    |               +* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andChristopher A. Lee
||||  |||    |               +* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andTweed
||||  |||    |               `- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andCharles Ellson
||||  |||    `* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andNigel Emery
||||  ||`* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andNobody
||||  |`* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andNY
||||  `- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andMuttley
|||+- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube nearAnna Noyd-Dryver
|||`* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and LatimerCharles Ellson
||`* London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andArthur Figgis
|`- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube nearAnna Noyd-Dryver
`- London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont andhounslow3@yahoo.co.uk

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819202122
Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

<2ged7hhj6djlm7mm0ca6ph8osd2l873ems@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29189&group=uk.railway#29189

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!buffer1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 07 May 2022 13:29:23 -0500
From: c.l...@fairpoint.net (Christopher A. Lee)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and
Date: Sat, 07 May 2022 13:29:19 -0500
Message-ID: <2ged7hhj6djlm7mm0ca6ph8osd2l873ems@4ax.com>
References: <HBT0mKNzsWbiFA6D@perry.uk> <t4m97g$bbb$1@gioia.aioe.org> <TtZxNUWEPMciFACl@perry.uk> <u0g37h11baihbcsk7ufs12ld6lkjrnjhpb@4ax.com> <ymAJf2CimiciFAGM@perry.uk> <hq067h9j7g1s4ubdlsrkp473sh2o14f96d@4ax.com> <hB79mMyN75ciFAXL@perry.uk> <cht87hdvht86lfo9uui3b5k9ssumr47tds@4ax.com> <gAntmLV7LRdiFAf9@perry.uk> <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com> <9e7KhMlJXjdiFA95@perry.uk> <t55i5n$p35$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t55kkq$2nb$1@dont-email.me> <t565vt$136s$1@gioia.aioe.org>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.20.32.1218
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 29
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-S5iw+vnPADAFzUpOIeaokmBvYt7Ij6kykIDN8L/pHdwxOxeM1TyxFMzan/DlcmZSSMnH+crrWoRZUhW!Mv6pk3MQeojyFSVtdQJIdwE3YLxDdnTbuABqFedcIlGFZl3XrJ7swA3fSykuibGnML+BcdDkAg==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2779
 by: Christopher A. Lee - Sat, 7 May 2022 18:29 UTC

On Sat, 7 May 2022 16:15:57 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Sat, 7 May 2022 11:19:54 -0000 (UTC)
>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 10:03:05 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>, at 17:15:18 on
>>>>>> fatter one along the street) are far more robust than telephone wires.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why wouldn't it be?
>>>>
>>>> Because in Muttley-world it wasn't.
>>>
>>> Why not try and tear some standard copper phone cable apart with your bare
>>> hands then get back to me about how weak it is.
>>
>>And then try and cut it with a pair of scissors, or walk over it a few
>>times in heavy boots; then try the same with a typical power cable.
>
>Its not going to be cut or walked over is it? Its in a conduit or cabinet
>safely tucked away. The only time it'll get broken is if someone messes
>about with it. The only exception would be overhead wires from poles to
>houses but I've never seen one break yet.

My provider in rural Missouri, ran a telephone cable across the
ground, through the grass, to my apartment - and the landscapers were
forever breaking it when they cut the grass.

Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

<t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29190&group=uk.railway#29190

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: usenet.t...@gmail.com (Tweed)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and
Date: Sat, 7 May 2022 19:03:39 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4gapj$s76$1@dont-email.me>
<+AHqmHilm8aiFAVQ@perry.uk>
<t4gjdj$ul5$1@dont-email.me>
<t4gvm3$18ui$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<hF$9npxCCNbiFAPP@perry.uk>
<t4jn2k$vms$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<HBT0mKNzsWbiFA6D@perry.uk>
<t4m97g$bbb$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<TtZxNUWEPMciFACl@perry.uk>
<u0g37h11baihbcsk7ufs12ld6lkjrnjhpb@4ax.com>
<ymAJf2CimiciFAGM@perry.uk>
<hq067h9j7g1s4ubdlsrkp473sh2o14f96d@4ax.com>
<hB79mMyN75ciFAXL@perry.uk>
<cht87hdvht86lfo9uui3b5k9ssumr47tds@4ax.com>
<gAntmLV7LRdiFAf9@perry.uk>
<28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>
<9e7KhMlJXjdiFA95@perry.uk>
<t55i5n$p35$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t55kkq$2nb$1@dont-email.me>
<t565vt$136s$1@gioia.aioe.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 7 May 2022 19:03:39 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="03ca3e491d7d9c8005e503ea0175273a";
logging-data="24131"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ZLlkEl/Ossym3BOvilfzm"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xP5v6/IZUz2sdSIbtCDMTyUFz80=
sha1:4Usb2Z4g1xmJsHgE3XkJzWQrB10=
 by: Tweed - Sat, 7 May 2022 19:03 UTC

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2022 11:19:54 -0000 (UTC)
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 10:03:05 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>, at 17:15:18 on
>>>>>> fatter one along the street) are far more robust than telephone wires.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why wouldn't it be?
>>>>
>>>> Because in Muttley-world it wasn't.
>>>
>>> Why not try and tear some standard copper phone cable apart with your bare
>>> hands then get back to me about how weak it is.
>>
>> And then try and cut it with a pair of scissors, or walk over it a few
>> times in heavy boots; then try the same with a typical power cable.
>
> Its not going to be cut or walked over is it? Its in a conduit or cabinet
> safely tucked away. The only time it'll get broken is if someone messes
> about with it. The only exception would be overhead wires from poles to
> houses but I've never seen one break yet.
>
>

Rewinding quite a bit on this thread, the reliability of the copper local
loop has something but not too much with its impending replacement with
fibre. If you are OpenReach with copper that can at best supply 80 Mbit/sec
down and 20 up, and your competitors come along with fibre that can manage
an order of magnitude better at the same price, which one is the the
average customer going to buy? OR have to move to fibre to survive in the
market place.

Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

<t56n32$ff3$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29193&group=uk.railway#29193

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: me...@privacy.invalid (NY)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and
Date: Sat, 7 May 2022 21:47:22 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 2
Message-ID: <t56n32$ff3$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4gapj$s76$1@dont-email.me> <+AHqmHilm8aiFAVQ@perry.uk> <t4gjdj$ul5$1@dont-email.me> <t4gvm3$18ui$1@gioia.aioe.org> <hF$9npxCCNbiFAPP@perry.uk> <t4jn2k$vms$1@gioia.aioe.org> <HBT0mKNzsWbiFA6D@perry.uk> <t4m97g$bbb$1@gioia.aioe.org> <TtZxNUWEPMciFACl@perry.uk> <u0g37h11baihbcsk7ufs12ld6lkjrnjhpb@4ax.com> <ymAJf2CimiciFAGM@perry.uk> <hq067h9j7g1s4ubdlsrkp473sh2o14f96d@4ax.com> <hB79mMyN75ciFAXL@perry.uk> <cht87hdvht86lfo9uui3b5k9ssumr47tds@4ax.com> <gAntmLV7LRdiFAf9@perry.uk> <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com> <9e7KhMlJXjdiFA95@perry.uk> <t55i5n$p35$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t55kkq$2nb$1@dont-email.me> <t565vt$136s$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="utf-8";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 7 May 2022 21:07:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b033f8f19c7d9bcafe07a591f6b3cb42";
logging-data="15843"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/w5vlQIJXXJd7tmHwVim+db+mONouSJ8s="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tQM11vRoO+CtNzEpwy5f096QxZc=
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8089.726
In-Reply-To: <t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726
Importance: Normal
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 220507-4, 7/5/2022), Outbound message
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
 by: NY - Sat, 7 May 2022 20:47 UTC

"Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me...
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 11:19:54 -0000 (UTC)
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 10:03:05 +0100
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>, at 17:15:18
>>>>> on
>>>>>>> fatter one along the street) are far more robust than telephone
>>>>>>> wires.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why wouldn't it be?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because in Muttley-world it wasn't.
>>>>
>>>> Why not try and tear some standard copper phone cable apart with your
>>>> bare
>>>> hands then get back to me about how weak it is.
>>>
>>> And then try and cut it with a pair of scissors, or walk over it a few
>>> times in heavy boots; then try the same with a typical power cable.
>>
>> Its not going to be cut or walked over is it? Its in a conduit or cabinet
>> safely tucked away. The only time it'll get broken is if someone messes
>> about with it. The only exception would be overhead wires from poles to
>> houses but I've never seen one break yet.
>
> Rewinding quite a bit on this thread, the reliability of the copper local
> loop has something but not too much with its impending replacement with
> fibre. If you are OpenReach with copper that can at best supply 80
> Mbit/sec
> down and 20 up, and your competitors come along with fibre that can manage
> an order of magnitude better at the same price, which one is the the
> average customer going to buy? OR have to move to fibre to survive in the
> market place.

Many years ago my parents had a problem with a phone line that constantly
crackled, so the GPO engineer (this was before BT) changed he drop cable,
after eliminating wiring problems upstream. And he have me the old drop
cable. So I know how rugged drop cable (in the 1970s) was. You couldn't rip
it or cut it with scissors. Even splitting the insulation between the two
cores (at the centre of the figure of 8 cross-section) needed many strokes
with a sharp knife. And being ductile copper, it doesn't break if the wire
is bent backwards and forwards many times.

Is modern drop cable the same spec? Assuming it's proper copper cable rather
than aluminium coated with copper...

The wires of the "pairs" in the underground bundles from the exchange to the
green cabinet and from there to the pole are a lot thinner (otherwise the
bundle would be f-ing enormous!) but then they are not subject to the same
stresses as an overhead drop cable. I can't remember: do they use the same
spec of overhead drop cable between an underground junction box and the
master socket in your house if you have underground rather than overhead
cable?

Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

<MKqG0ERNk6diFAKi@perry.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29209&group=uk.railway#29209

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and
Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 12:27:09 +0100
Organization: Roland Perry
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <MKqG0ERNk6diFAKi@perry.uk>
References: <t4gapj$s76$1@dont-email.me> <+AHqmHilm8aiFAVQ@perry.uk>
<t4gjdj$ul5$1@dont-email.me> <t4gvm3$18ui$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<hF$9npxCCNbiFAPP@perry.uk> <t4jn2k$vms$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<HBT0mKNzsWbiFA6D@perry.uk> <t4m97g$bbb$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<TtZxNUWEPMciFACl@perry.uk> <u0g37h11baihbcsk7ufs12ld6lkjrnjhpb@4ax.com>
<ymAJf2CimiciFAGM@perry.uk> <hq067h9j7g1s4ubdlsrkp473sh2o14f96d@4ax.com>
<hB79mMyN75ciFAXL@perry.uk> <cht87hdvht86lfo9uui3b5k9ssumr47tds@4ax.com>
<gAntmLV7LRdiFAf9@perry.uk> <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>
<9e7KhMlJXjdiFA95@perry.uk> <t55i5n$p35$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t55kkq$2nb$1@dont-email.me> <t565vt$136s$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t566eg$aje$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8;format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net oXcn+Bc0H+0d1pZDUWbE9w+gdE74uSflRZ8wTU37dQWKifsGHM
X-Orig-Path: perry.co.uk!roland
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OayVfDMUjIkISEvY0vZjN/X+bgY=
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<52l5fZdV$jhVf1U93hT62mJV+y>)
 by: Roland Perry - Sun, 8 May 2022 11:27 UTC

In message <t566eg$aje$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:23:44 on Sat, 7 May 2022,
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 11:19:54 -0000 (UTC)
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 10:03:05 +0100
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>, at 17:15:18 on
>>>>>>> fatter one along the street) are far more robust than telephone wires.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why wouldn't it be?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because in Muttley-world it wasn't.
>>>>
>>>> Why not try and tear some standard copper phone cable apart with your bare
>>>> hands then get back to me about how weak it is.
>>>
>>> And then try and cut it with a pair of scissors, or walk over it a few
>>> times in heavy boots; then try the same with a typical power cable.
>>
>> Its not going to be cut or walked over is it? Its in a conduit or cabinet
>> safely tucked away. …
>
>Well then it’s not going to get torn apart with anyone’s bare hands, is it?

The dodgy connection in my copper is in a hole in the ground with a
manhole cover above.

>> … The only time it'll get broken is if someone messes
>> about with it.

One of the most common causes of line outages is engineers diving though
the spaghetti inside a street cabinet, and it seem often accidentally
breaking existing connections as well as making a new one.

>>The only exception would be overhead wires from poles to
>> houses but I've never seen one break yet.
>
>Ours did.

Me too, [three houses ago] they had to put in a whole new one, from the
pole across the street, through the tree which had done for the old
cable.

>The outer was cracked, the cable was full of water and the BT
>guy who replaced it said he didn’t know how it had ever worked.

Thirty years ago, they had to replace a junction box on the side of my
then house from which the phone line to my neighbour was daisy-chained.
As with all these other example, really flimsy wiring and
accident-waiting-to-happen IDC connectors.
--
Roland Perry

Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

<y7CZ46RuV7diFA$x@perry.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29211&group=uk.railway#29211

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and
Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 13:19:58 +0100
Organization: Roland Perry
Lines: 45
Message-ID: <y7CZ46RuV7diFA$x@perry.uk>
References: <t4gapj$s76$1@dont-email.me> <+AHqmHilm8aiFAVQ@perry.uk>
<t4gjdj$ul5$1@dont-email.me> <t4gvm3$18ui$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<hF$9npxCCNbiFAPP@perry.uk> <t4jn2k$vms$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<HBT0mKNzsWbiFA6D@perry.uk> <t4m97g$bbb$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<TtZxNUWEPMciFACl@perry.uk> <u0g37h11baihbcsk7ufs12ld6lkjrnjhpb@4ax.com>
<ymAJf2CimiciFAGM@perry.uk> <hq067h9j7g1s4ubdlsrkp473sh2o14f96d@4ax.com>
<hB79mMyN75ciFAXL@perry.uk> <cht87hdvht86lfo9uui3b5k9ssumr47tds@4ax.com>
<gAntmLV7LRdiFAf9@perry.uk> <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>
<9e7KhMlJXjdiFA95@perry.uk> <t55i5n$p35$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t55kkq$2nb$1@dont-email.me> <t565vt$136s$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
X-Trace: individual.net hfbB3uh6b/NwTBpV3nYbDQ8kODTU0GMtpsybpVudfCSLQacst9
X-Orig-Path: perry.co.uk!roland
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xgiUxgX1RBWJL4dvPAkPeJb7S1g=
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<52t5fZ9V$jhXf1U93hR62mJ1e2>)
 by: Roland Perry - Sun, 8 May 2022 12:19 UTC

In message <t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:03:39 on Sat, 7 May 2022,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 11:19:54 -0000 (UTC)
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 10:03:05 +0100
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>, at 17:15:18 on
>>>>>>> fatter one along the street) are far more robust than telephone wires.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why wouldn't it be?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because in Muttley-world it wasn't.
>>>>
>>>> Why not try and tear some standard copper phone cable apart with your bare
>>>> hands then get back to me about how weak it is.
>>>
>>> And then try and cut it with a pair of scissors, or walk over it a few
>>> times in heavy boots; then try the same with a typical power cable.
>>
>> Its not going to be cut or walked over is it? Its in a conduit or cabinet
>> safely tucked away. The only time it'll get broken is if someone messes
>> about with it. The only exception would be overhead wires from poles to
>> houses but I've never seen one break yet.
>>
>
>Rewinding quite a bit on this thread, the reliability of the copper local
>loop has something but not too much with its impending replacement with
>fibre. If you are OpenReach with copper that can at best supply 80 Mbit/sec
>down and 20 up, and your competitors come along with fibre that can manage
>an order of magnitude better at the same price, which one is the the
>average customer going to buy? OR have to move to fibre to survive in the
>market place.

That's not true because if they try hard they can deliver 300Mbps on the
copper (that's what I have at the moment), in the urban and semi-urban
areas that might be the ones someone else would offer cable.

But who are Openreach's competitors most of the country? Virgin's
precursors gave up extending their network 20yrs ago.

There's no Virgin here, and actually only two LLU.
--
Roland Perry

Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

<KLAXUSSlX7diFA7d@perry.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29212&group=uk.railway#29212

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!paganini.bofh.team!newsfeed.xs3.de!callisto.xs3.de!news.nnrp.de!akk.uni-karlsruhe.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and
Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 13:21:57 +0100
Organization: Roland Perry
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <KLAXUSSlX7diFA7d@perry.uk>
References: <t4gapj$s76$1@dont-email.me> <t4gjdj$ul5$1@dont-email.me>
<t4gvm3$18ui$1@gioia.aioe.org> <hF$9npxCCNbiFAPP@perry.uk>
<t4jn2k$vms$1@gioia.aioe.org> <HBT0mKNzsWbiFA6D@perry.uk>
<t4m97g$bbb$1@gioia.aioe.org> <TtZxNUWEPMciFACl@perry.uk>
<u0g37h11baihbcsk7ufs12ld6lkjrnjhpb@4ax.com> <ymAJf2CimiciFAGM@perry.uk>
<hq067h9j7g1s4ubdlsrkp473sh2o14f96d@4ax.com> <hB79mMyN75ciFAXL@perry.uk>
<cht87hdvht86lfo9uui3b5k9ssumr47tds@4ax.com> <gAntmLV7LRdiFAf9@perry.uk>
<28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com> <9e7KhMlJXjdiFA95@perry.uk>
<t55i5n$p35$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t55kkq$2nb$1@dont-email.me>
<t565vt$136s$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me>
<t56n32$ff3$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
X-Trace: individual.net JsV0Cl3NfmuFzX5JJ5OhSwm5jxCLi6knQM/+PmwMOBb+YJB9vW
X-Orig-Path: perry.co.uk!roland
Cancel-Lock: sha1:l33J5cdxj2RFPzdm2itR7qLnQfY=
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<5Rm5fFb1$jxxR1U9dxW62mVbUT>)
 by: Roland Perry - Sun, 8 May 2022 12:21 UTC

In message <t56n32$ff3$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:47:22 on Sat, 7 May 2022,
NY <me@privacy.invalid> remarked:
>"Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me...
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 11:19:54 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 10:03:05 +0100
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>, at
>>>>>>17:15:18 on
>>>>>>>> fatter one along the street) are far more robust than telephone
>>>>>>>>wires.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why wouldn't it be?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because in Muttley-world it wasn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not try and tear some standard copper phone cable apart with
>>>>>your bare
>>>>> hands then get back to me about how weak it is.
>>>>
>>>> And then try and cut it with a pair of scissors, or walk over it a few
>>>> times in heavy boots; then try the same with a typical power cable.
>>>
>>> Its not going to be cut or walked over is it? Its in a conduit or cabinet
>>> safely tucked away. The only time it'll get broken is if someone messes
>>> about with it. The only exception would be overhead wires from poles to
>>> houses but I've never seen one break yet.
>>
>> Rewinding quite a bit on this thread, the reliability of the copper local
>> loop has something but not too much with its impending replacement with
>> fibre. If you are OpenReach with copper that can at best supply 80
>>Mbit/sec
>> down and 20 up, and your competitors come along with fibre that can manage
>> an order of magnitude better at the same price, which one is the the
>> average customer going to buy? OR have to move to fibre to survive in the
>> market place.
>
>Many years ago my parents had a problem with a phone line that
>constantly crackled, so the GPO engineer (this was before BT) changed
>he drop cable, after eliminating wiring problems upstream. And he have
>me the old drop cable. So I know how rugged drop cable (in the 1970s)
>was. You couldn't rip it or cut it with scissors. Even splitting the
>insulation between the two cores (at the centre of the figure of 8
>cross-section) needed many strokes with a sharp knife. And being
>ductile copper, it doesn't break if the wire is bent backwards and
>forwards many times.
>
>Is modern drop cable the same spec? Assuming it's proper copper cable
>rather than aluminium coated with copper...
>
>The wires of the "pairs" in the underground bundles from the exchange
>to the green cabinet and from there to the pole are a lot thinner
>(otherwise the bundle would be f-ing enormous!) but then they are not
>subject to the same stresses as an overhead drop cable. I can't
>remember: do they use the same spec of overhead drop cable between an
>underground junction box and the master socket in your house if you
>have underground rather than overhead cable?

No, and they don't use the more robust drop-cable apart from the top of
the pole to your premises.
--
Roland Perry

Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

<XKaA0cUNp7diFA4u@perry.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29213&group=uk.railway#29213

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and
Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 13:40:45 +0100
Organization: Roland Perry
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <XKaA0cUNp7diFA4u@perry.uk>
References: <w1n5r7amn3aiFAGJ@perry.uk> <t4g4gf$b5l$1@dont-email.me>
<7wer6JjCw8aiFAWW@perry.uk> <s8pn6htjchk7s5g74pri082u3mdui14s7r@4ax.com>
<t4gvvf$1db2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <rn4o6hd73jv0kl7d365gp5nhud8khqmpjp@4ax.com>
<t4jmqh$rse$1@gioia.aioe.org> <Mxs2apNMvWbiFAZR@perry.uk>
<t4m9bi$d7c$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t4p2sl$o81$1@dont-email.me>
<A6gFYSUh9LciFAwM@perry.uk> <t4tbiq$6up$1@dont-email.me>
<zgSp+6VtURdiFA+A@perry.uk> <t53828$9ne$1@dont-email.me>
<p99a7h1hses2g7a0tiul6q3bs8nio1ahk6@4ax.com> <lxw8aifkkSdiFAMV@perry.uk>
<t53foa$lbk$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
X-Trace: individual.net uoD/O+831Qxmm3RGUgEjIg8avWsYBCwKyFGPxhIxOaEhTgNMXD
X-Orig-Path: perry.co.uk!roland
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cyfsdoVghAEVwjv9D3cY+HEjFLg=
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<5Gq5fZrx$jxmd1U9sxR62mJqoj>)
 by: Roland Perry - Sun, 8 May 2022 12:40 UTC

In message <t53foa$lbk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:44:10 on Fri, 6 May
2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>On Fri, 6 May 2022 14:56:52 +0100
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <p99a7h1hses2g7a0tiul6q3bs8nio1ahk6@4ax.com>, at 14:40:34 on
>>Fri, 6 May 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>In what sense is the "cloud" not a line? It still consists of physically
>>>>connected components despite the marketing name.
>>>
>>>Might there not be satellite, microwave or WiFi links along the way?
>>
>>Shush! I wasn't going to raise that. However, especially on bad
>>connections, the packets might not even be flowing through all
>>the same routers from one second to the next.
>
>"Cloud" is nothing more than marketdroid terminology for the internet.
>The latter sounds techy and scary, the former warm and fluffy and doesn't
>scare off the dimwit techno illiterates in the boardroom.

Once again, you fail to distinguish between the cloud-services/cloud
storage, and the stuff which connects it all together.
--
Roland Perry

Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

<3mff7hl713e52uahoanc5ie6hc9686lc6v@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29214&group=uk.railway#29214

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!feeder1.feed.usenet.farm!feed.usenet.farm!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!fdc2.netnews.com!peer03.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!fx11.ams1.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: recliner...@gmail.com (Recliner)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and
Message-ID: <3mff7hl713e52uahoanc5ie6hc9686lc6v@4ax.com>
References: <TtZxNUWEPMciFACl@perry.uk> <u0g37h11baihbcsk7ufs12ld6lkjrnjhpb@4ax.com> <ymAJf2CimiciFAGM@perry.uk> <hq067h9j7g1s4ubdlsrkp473sh2o14f96d@4ax.com> <hB79mMyN75ciFAXL@perry.uk> <cht87hdvht86lfo9uui3b5k9ssumr47tds@4ax.com> <gAntmLV7LRdiFAf9@perry.uk> <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com> <9e7KhMlJXjdiFA95@perry.uk> <t55i5n$p35$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t55kkq$2nb$1@dont-email.me> <t565vt$136s$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me> <y7CZ46RuV7diFA$x@perry.uk>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.20.32.1218
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 51
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Sun, 08 May 2022 14:00:55 +0100
X-Received-Bytes: 3445
 by: Recliner - Sun, 8 May 2022 13:00 UTC

On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:19:58 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:

>In message <t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:03:39 on Sat, 7 May 2022,
>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 11:19:54 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 10:03:05 +0100
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>, at 17:15:18 on
>>>>>>>> fatter one along the street) are far more robust than telephone wires.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why wouldn't it be?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because in Muttley-world it wasn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not try and tear some standard copper phone cable apart with your bare
>>>>> hands then get back to me about how weak it is.
>>>>
>>>> And then try and cut it with a pair of scissors, or walk over it a few
>>>> times in heavy boots; then try the same with a typical power cable.
>>>
>>> Its not going to be cut or walked over is it? Its in a conduit or cabinet
>>> safely tucked away. The only time it'll get broken is if someone messes
>>> about with it. The only exception would be overhead wires from poles to
>>> houses but I've never seen one break yet.
>>>
>>
>>Rewinding quite a bit on this thread, the reliability of the copper local
>>loop has something but not too much with its impending replacement with
>>fibre. If you are OpenReach with copper that can at best supply 80 Mbit/sec
>>down and 20 up, and your competitors come along with fibre that can manage
>>an order of magnitude better at the same price, which one is the the
>>average customer going to buy? OR have to move to fibre to survive in the
>>market place.
>
>That's not true because if they try hard they can deliver 300Mbps on the
>copper (that's what I have at the moment), in the urban and semi-urban
>areas that might be the ones someone else would offer cable.

Is that FTTC or FTTP?

>
>But who are Openreach's competitors most of the country? Virgin's
>precursors gave up extending their network 20yrs ago.

There are plenty of local FTTP competitors, but I'm not sure if there are any national ones.

>
>There's no Virgin here, and actually only two LLU.

Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

<utC+9aXvh8diFAN$@perry.uk>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29215&group=uk.railway#29215

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland Perry)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and
Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 14:41:03 +0100
Organization: Roland Perry
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <utC+9aXvh8diFAN$@perry.uk>
References: <TtZxNUWEPMciFACl@perry.uk>
<u0g37h11baihbcsk7ufs12ld6lkjrnjhpb@4ax.com> <ymAJf2CimiciFAGM@perry.uk>
<hq067h9j7g1s4ubdlsrkp473sh2o14f96d@4ax.com> <hB79mMyN75ciFAXL@perry.uk>
<cht87hdvht86lfo9uui3b5k9ssumr47tds@4ax.com> <gAntmLV7LRdiFAf9@perry.uk>
<28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com> <9e7KhMlJXjdiFA95@perry.uk>
<t55i5n$p35$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t55kkq$2nb$1@dont-email.me>
<t565vt$136s$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me>
<y7CZ46RuV7diFA$x@perry.uk> <3mff7hl713e52uahoanc5ie6hc9686lc6v@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
X-Trace: individual.net yh7FPXwTRE2ERVFHv0wEeQTRni8ZZ/BPhwKlzGShRgb0ToYCeP
X-Orig-Path: perry.co.uk!roland
Cancel-Lock: sha1:V121Zh+Czv6eYPhiUvgVDnhYVlw=
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M (<5xj5fFN1$jhQR1U9PhW62mVNOF>)
 by: Roland Perry - Sun, 8 May 2022 13:41 UTC

In message <3mff7hl713e52uahoanc5ie6hc9686lc6v@4ax.com>, at 14:00:55 on
Sun, 8 May 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:19:58 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:03:39 on Sat, 7 May 2022,
>>Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 11:19:54 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 10:03:05 +0100
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>, at 17:15:18 on
>>>>>>>>> fatter one along the street) are far more robust than telephone wires.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why wouldn't it be?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because in Muttley-world it wasn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not try and tear some standard copper phone cable apart with
>>>>>>your bare
>>>>>> hands then get back to me about how weak it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> And then try and cut it with a pair of scissors, or walk over it a few
>>>>> times in heavy boots; then try the same with a typical power cable.
>>>>
>>>> Its not going to be cut or walked over is it? Its in a conduit or cabinet
>>>> safely tucked away. The only time it'll get broken is if someone messes
>>>> about with it. The only exception would be overhead wires from poles to
>>>> houses but I've never seen one break yet.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Rewinding quite a bit on this thread, the reliability of the copper local
>>>loop has something but not too much with its impending replacement with
>>>fibre. If you are OpenReach with copper that can at best supply 80 Mbit/sec
>>>down and 20 up, and your competitors come along with fibre that can manage
>>>an order of magnitude better at the same price, which one is the the
>>>average customer going to buy? OR have to move to fibre to survive in the
>>>market place.
>>
>>That's not true because if they try hard they can deliver 300Mbps on the
>>copper (that's what I have at the moment), in the urban and semi-urban
>>areas that might be the ones someone else would offer cable.
>
>Is that FTTC or FTTP?

It's FTTC, and the final throw of the dice for copper-to-the-premises.
Most resellers won't guarantee more than about 160Mbps, but I seem to be
lucky in having towards the upper end of the 330Mbps theoretical limit.

Frankly, I'd have preferred FTTP, but Openreach haven't done that in my
street yet. And with the "end of copper" deadline heading for the long
grass, I decided I didn't want to wait.

>>But who are Openreach's competitors most of the country? Virgin's
>>precursors gave up extending their network 20yrs ago.
>
>There are plenty of local FTTP competitors, but I'm not sure if there
>are any national ones.

Are those FTTP competitors using their own networks, dug by them through
the streets; or are they Piggy-backing Openreach's FTTP? In a sense LLU,
but in this case the local [all the way back to wherever Openreach's
head end is] loop is fibre, not copper.

>>There's no Virgin here, and actually only two LLU.

--
Roland Perry

Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

<t58jme$sbj$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29216&group=uk.railway#29216

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: recliner...@gmail.com (Recliner)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and
Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 14:22:06 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <t58jme$sbj$1@dont-email.me>
References: <TtZxNUWEPMciFACl@perry.uk>
<u0g37h11baihbcsk7ufs12ld6lkjrnjhpb@4ax.com>
<ymAJf2CimiciFAGM@perry.uk>
<hq067h9j7g1s4ubdlsrkp473sh2o14f96d@4ax.com>
<hB79mMyN75ciFAXL@perry.uk>
<cht87hdvht86lfo9uui3b5k9ssumr47tds@4ax.com>
<gAntmLV7LRdiFAf9@perry.uk>
<28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>
<9e7KhMlJXjdiFA95@perry.uk>
<t55i5n$p35$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t55kkq$2nb$1@dont-email.me>
<t565vt$136s$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me>
<y7CZ46RuV7diFA$x@perry.uk>
<3mff7hl713e52uahoanc5ie6hc9686lc6v@4ax.com>
<utC+9aXvh8diFAN$@perry.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 14:22:06 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="cbb322bb07f0740f49746b162f2472a0";
logging-data="29043"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19TpiP28PHPXfnWjooCieMFe4DnH0rwQ64="
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iEGH5IzaZsduPWdLdnenju32dU0=
sha1:7UDgaF9fWK+a8xIJruUDlHcYpVg=
 by: Recliner - Sun, 8 May 2022 14:22 UTC

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <3mff7hl713e52uahoanc5ie6hc9686lc6v@4ax.com>, at 14:00:55 on
> Sun, 8 May 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:19:58 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:03:39 on Sat, 7 May 2022,
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 11:19:54 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 10:03:05 +0100
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>, at 17:15:18 on
>>>>>>>>>> fatter one along the street) are far more robust than telephone wires.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why wouldn't it be?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because in Muttley-world it wasn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why not try and tear some standard copper phone cable apart with
>>>>>>> your bare
>>>>>>> hands then get back to me about how weak it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And then try and cut it with a pair of scissors, or walk over it a few
>>>>>> times in heavy boots; then try the same with a typical power cable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its not going to be cut or walked over is it? Its in a conduit or cabinet
>>>>> safely tucked away. The only time it'll get broken is if someone messes
>>>>> about with it. The only exception would be overhead wires from poles to
>>>>> houses but I've never seen one break yet.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rewinding quite a bit on this thread, the reliability of the copper local
>>>> loop has something but not too much with its impending replacement with
>>>> fibre. If you are OpenReach with copper that can at best supply 80 Mbit/sec
>>>> down and 20 up, and your competitors come along with fibre that can manage
>>>> an order of magnitude better at the same price, which one is the the
>>>> average customer going to buy? OR have to move to fibre to survive in the
>>>> market place.
>>>
>>> That's not true because if they try hard they can deliver 300Mbps on the
>>> copper (that's what I have at the moment), in the urban and semi-urban
>>> areas that might be the ones someone else would offer cable.
>>
>> Is that FTTC or FTTP?
>
> It's FTTC, and the final throw of the dice for copper-to-the-premises.
> Most resellers won't guarantee more than about 160Mbps, but I seem to be
> lucky in having towards the upper end of the 330Mbps theoretical limit.
>
> Frankly, I'd have preferred FTTP, but Openreach haven't done that in my
> street yet. And with the "end of copper" deadline heading for the long
> grass, I decided I didn't want to wait.
>
>>> But who are Openreach's competitors most of the country? Virgin's
>>> precursors gave up extending their network 20yrs ago.
>>
>> There are plenty of local FTTP competitors, but I'm not sure if there
>> are any national ones.
>
> Are those FTTP competitors using their own networks, dug by them through
> the streets; or are they Piggy-backing Openreach's FTTP? In a sense LLU,
> but in this case the local [all the way back to wherever Openreach's
> head end is] loop is fibre, not copper.
>

I suppose it must vary, but there certainly are local providers with their
own local fibre networks, who got there well before Openreach had a local
FTTP offering. In some cases, these do rely on the BT network backbone, but
not Openreach.

Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

<t58krv$5jv$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29218&group=uk.railway#29218

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: usenet.t...@gmail.com (Tweed)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and
Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 14:42:07 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 104
Message-ID: <t58krv$5jv$1@dont-email.me>
References: <TtZxNUWEPMciFACl@perry.uk>
<u0g37h11baihbcsk7ufs12ld6lkjrnjhpb@4ax.com>
<ymAJf2CimiciFAGM@perry.uk>
<hq067h9j7g1s4ubdlsrkp473sh2o14f96d@4ax.com>
<hB79mMyN75ciFAXL@perry.uk>
<cht87hdvht86lfo9uui3b5k9ssumr47tds@4ax.com>
<gAntmLV7LRdiFAf9@perry.uk>
<28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>
<9e7KhMlJXjdiFA95@perry.uk>
<t55i5n$p35$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t55kkq$2nb$1@dont-email.me>
<t565vt$136s$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me>
<y7CZ46RuV7diFA$x@perry.uk>
<3mff7hl713e52uahoanc5ie6hc9686lc6v@4ax.com>
<utC+9aXvh8diFAN$@perry.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 14:42:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="e49417983d9959ff970a41d79577f94b";
logging-data="5759"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18S7ehyNVUDoVh5/7I8E103"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+XYExRakScQiZY14U0sSk/HJOos=
sha1:oK4NxIL00sZcXsu02zaDNj+sR/s=
 by: Tweed - Sun, 8 May 2022 14:42 UTC

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <3mff7hl713e52uahoanc5ie6hc9686lc6v@4ax.com>, at 14:00:55 on
> Sun, 8 May 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:19:58 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:03:39 on Sat, 7 May 2022,
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 11:19:54 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 10:03:05 +0100
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>, at 17:15:18 on
>>>>>>>>>> fatter one along the street) are far more robust than telephone wires.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why wouldn't it be?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because in Muttley-world it wasn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why not try and tear some standard copper phone cable apart with
>>>>>>> your bare
>>>>>>> hands then get back to me about how weak it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And then try and cut it with a pair of scissors, or walk over it a few
>>>>>> times in heavy boots; then try the same with a typical power cable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its not going to be cut or walked over is it? Its in a conduit or cabinet
>>>>> safely tucked away. The only time it'll get broken is if someone messes
>>>>> about with it. The only exception would be overhead wires from poles to
>>>>> houses but I've never seen one break yet.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rewinding quite a bit on this thread, the reliability of the copper local
>>>> loop has something but not too much with its impending replacement with
>>>> fibre. If you are OpenReach with copper that can at best supply 80 Mbit/sec
>>>> down and 20 up, and your competitors come along with fibre that can manage
>>>> an order of magnitude better at the same price, which one is the the
>>>> average customer going to buy? OR have to move to fibre to survive in the
>>>> market place.
>>>
>>> That's not true because if they try hard they can deliver 300Mbps on the
>>> copper (that's what I have at the moment), in the urban and semi-urban
>>> areas that might be the ones someone else would offer cable.
>>
>> Is that FTTC or FTTP?
>
> It's FTTC, and the final throw of the dice for copper-to-the-premises.
> Most resellers won't guarantee more than about 160Mbps, but I seem to be
> lucky in having towards the upper end of the 330Mbps theoretical limit.
>
> Frankly, I'd have preferred FTTP, but Openreach haven't done that in my
> street yet. And with the "end of copper" deadline heading for the long
> grass, I decided I didn't want to wait.
>
>>> But who are Openreach's competitors most of the country? Virgin's
>>> precursors gave up extending their network 20yrs ago.
>>
>> There are plenty of local FTTP competitors, but I'm not sure if there
>> are any national ones.
>
> Are those FTTP competitors using their own networks, dug by them through
> the streets; or are they Piggy-backing Openreach's FTTP? In a sense LLU,
> but in this case the local [all the way back to wherever Openreach's
> head end is] loop is fibre, not copper.
>
>>> There's no Virgin here, and actually only two LLU.
>

Read up on CityFibres plans and financing. They are digging round here and
intend to (and nearby are) offer service in the same streets as Virgin
Media and OpenReach. They aren’t the only ones going for the suburban
market.

https://cityfibre.com/about-us/our-network

CF lay their own fibre, mainly in their own ducts (purple pipes) but
sometime seem to use existing OR ducts into the house. They have their own
head end “exchanges”. Unlike OR’s FTTP, CF offer symmetric up and down
speeds up to 1 GBit/sec. It’s a wholesale network and you can choose from a
number of retail provides. Vodafone and Zen seem to be the main players at
the moment.

Your high speed FTTC connection only works because you are very near to
your cabinet, so you are lucky. It’s nothing to do with OR trying harder.
Most FTTC customers aren’t even close enough to get the basic 80 Mbit/sec
speed.

https://cloudandfibre.co.uk/what-is-gfast/

“GFast works in a very similar way to FTTC but extra specialised equipment
is fitted to the BT cabinet to alter the speed frequencies of the
connection. This change within the frequencies increases the speed through
the copper cable which results in a more reliable broadband with ultrafast
speeds. GFast users are typically located no more than 500 metres from
their local BT cabinet.”

Virgin Media have said they are going to replace their entire hybrid
coax/fibre network with proper fibre (and eliminate the DOCSIS bodge) over
the next 7 years - so they’ve noticed they have to invest to survive. If OR
sticks with copper they’ll be left without a viable business in the long
term, being left with only the expensive to service rural customers.

Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

<t58mm1$joe$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29219&group=uk.railway#29219

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: recliner...@gmail.com (Recliner)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and
Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 15:13:05 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <t58mm1$joe$1@dont-email.me>
References: <TtZxNUWEPMciFACl@perry.uk>
<u0g37h11baihbcsk7ufs12ld6lkjrnjhpb@4ax.com>
<ymAJf2CimiciFAGM@perry.uk>
<hq067h9j7g1s4ubdlsrkp473sh2o14f96d@4ax.com>
<hB79mMyN75ciFAXL@perry.uk>
<cht87hdvht86lfo9uui3b5k9ssumr47tds@4ax.com>
<gAntmLV7LRdiFAf9@perry.uk>
<28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>
<9e7KhMlJXjdiFA95@perry.uk>
<t55i5n$p35$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t55kkq$2nb$1@dont-email.me>
<t565vt$136s$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me>
<y7CZ46RuV7diFA$x@perry.uk>
<3mff7hl713e52uahoanc5ie6hc9686lc6v@4ax.com>
<utC+9aXvh8diFAN$@perry.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 15:13:05 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="cbb322bb07f0740f49746b162f2472a0";
logging-data="20238"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18NdfllqCBrl/WWiN5ZhvmxrJoF7UOBxME="
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:9oLjVXxBHQMlBGXRBR9it4yxLRc=
sha1:CoLWG6K0NthnfvDevcFRGpzSEdY=
 by: Recliner - Sun, 8 May 2022 15:13 UTC

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <3mff7hl713e52uahoanc5ie6hc9686lc6v@4ax.com>, at 14:00:55 on
> Sun, 8 May 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:19:58 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:03:39 on Sat, 7 May 2022,
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 11:19:54 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 10:03:05 +0100
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>, at 17:15:18 on
>>>>>>>>>> fatter one along the street) are far more robust than telephone wires.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why wouldn't it be?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because in Muttley-world it wasn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why not try and tear some standard copper phone cable apart with
>>>>>>> your bare
>>>>>>> hands then get back to me about how weak it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And then try and cut it with a pair of scissors, or walk over it a few
>>>>>> times in heavy boots; then try the same with a typical power cable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its not going to be cut or walked over is it? Its in a conduit or cabinet
>>>>> safely tucked away. The only time it'll get broken is if someone messes
>>>>> about with it. The only exception would be overhead wires from poles to
>>>>> houses but I've never seen one break yet.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rewinding quite a bit on this thread, the reliability of the copper local
>>>> loop has something but not too much with its impending replacement with
>>>> fibre. If you are OpenReach with copper that can at best supply 80 Mbit/sec
>>>> down and 20 up, and your competitors come along with fibre that can manage
>>>> an order of magnitude better at the same price, which one is the the
>>>> average customer going to buy? OR have to move to fibre to survive in the
>>>> market place.
>>>
>>> That's not true because if they try hard they can deliver 300Mbps on the
>>> copper (that's what I have at the moment), in the urban and semi-urban
>>> areas that might be the ones someone else would offer cable.
>>
>> Is that FTTC or FTTP?
>
> It's FTTC, and the final throw of the dice for copper-to-the-premises.
> Most resellers won't guarantee more than about 160Mbps, but I seem to be
> lucky in having towards the upper end of the 330Mbps theoretical limit.

What upload speeds do you get?

Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

<t58s9i$vil$2@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29224&group=uk.railway#29224

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ann...@noyd-dryver.com (Anna Noyd-Dryver)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and
Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 16:48:50 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <t58s9i$vil$2@dont-email.me>
References: <t4gapj$s76$1@dont-email.me>
<+AHqmHilm8aiFAVQ@perry.uk>
<t4gjdj$ul5$1@dont-email.me>
<t4gvm3$18ui$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<hF$9npxCCNbiFAPP@perry.uk>
<t4jn2k$vms$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<HBT0mKNzsWbiFA6D@perry.uk>
<t4m97g$bbb$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<TtZxNUWEPMciFACl@perry.uk>
<u0g37h11baihbcsk7ufs12ld6lkjrnjhpb@4ax.com>
<ymAJf2CimiciFAGM@perry.uk>
<hq067h9j7g1s4ubdlsrkp473sh2o14f96d@4ax.com>
<hB79mMyN75ciFAXL@perry.uk>
<cht87hdvht86lfo9uui3b5k9ssumr47tds@4ax.com>
<gAntmLV7LRdiFAf9@perry.uk>
<28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>
<9e7KhMlJXjdiFA95@perry.uk>
<t55i5n$p35$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t55kkq$2nb$1@dont-email.me>
<t565vt$136s$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me>
<t56n32$ff3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 16:48:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="18eb728a4518c7ac694b81ec2f3a7e36";
logging-data="32341"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Beroz9zUZOs/L5J7cFeFwPF8MGQrVIEQ="
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:R9drxeahACNnPH5RMpmZfkNOKIQ=
sha1:eAqfWE16z89hmCMp145s4/t/Qt4=
 by: Anna Noyd-Dryver - Sun, 8 May 2022 16:48 UTC

NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me...
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 11:19:54 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 10:03:05 +0100
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>, at 17:15:18
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> fatter one along the street) are far more robust than telephone
>>>>>>>> wires.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why wouldn't it be?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because in Muttley-world it wasn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not try and tear some standard copper phone cable apart with your
>>>>> bare
>>>>> hands then get back to me about how weak it is.
>>>>
>>>> And then try and cut it with a pair of scissors, or walk over it a few
>>>> times in heavy boots; then try the same with a typical power cable.
>>>
>>> Its not going to be cut or walked over is it? Its in a conduit or cabinet
>>> safely tucked away. The only time it'll get broken is if someone messes
>>> about with it. The only exception would be overhead wires from poles to
>>> houses but I've never seen one break yet.
>>
>> Rewinding quite a bit on this thread, the reliability of the copper local
>> loop has something but not too much with its impending replacement with
>> fibre. If you are OpenReach with copper that can at best supply 80
>> Mbit/sec
>> down and 20 up, and your competitors come along with fibre that can manage
>> an order of magnitude better at the same price, which one is the the
>> average customer going to buy? OR have to move to fibre to survive in the
>> market place.
>
> Many years ago my parents had a problem with a phone line that constantly
> crackled, so the GPO engineer (this was before BT) changed he drop cable,
> after eliminating wiring problems upstream. And he have me the old drop
> cable. So I know how rugged drop cable (in the 1970s) was. You couldn't rip
> it or cut it with scissors. Even splitting the insulation between the two
> cores (at the centre of the figure of 8 cross-section) needed many strokes
> with a sharp knife. And being ductile copper, it doesn't break if the wire
> is bent backwards and forwards many times.
>
> Is modern drop cable the same spec? Assuming it's proper copper cable rather
> than aluminium coated with copper...
>
>
> The wires of the "pairs" in the underground bundles from the exchange to the
> green cabinet and from there to the pole are a lot thinner (otherwise the
> bundle would be f-ing enormous!) but then they are not subject to the same
> stresses as an overhead drop cable. I can't remember: do they use the same
> spec of overhead drop cable between an underground junction box and the
> master socket in your house if you have underground rather than overhead
> cable?
>
>

Around 30 years ago a friend had wired a model tram layout with some
(unused) telephone cable. The (four?) coloured wires I remember (though it
was some time ago) being what you'd now find behind a domestic phone socket
(single-strand, thin, stays bent when you bend it); there were also four
yellow wires of multiple-strand, much less pliable metal, which IIRC didn't
like staying where you bent it to. Enquiries to a telephone engineer who
was in the local am-dram society determined that those wires are what comes
out of the cable as a whole, to be fixed to the supports at the ends.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

<t59077$v05$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29227&group=uk.railway#29227

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ukr...@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk (Sam Wilson)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and
Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 17:55:51 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 79
Message-ID: <t59077$v05$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4gapj$s76$1@dont-email.me>
<+AHqmHilm8aiFAVQ@perry.uk>
<t4gjdj$ul5$1@dont-email.me>
<t4gvm3$18ui$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<hF$9npxCCNbiFAPP@perry.uk>
<t4jn2k$vms$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<HBT0mKNzsWbiFA6D@perry.uk>
<t4m97g$bbb$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<TtZxNUWEPMciFACl@perry.uk>
<u0g37h11baihbcsk7ufs12ld6lkjrnjhpb@4ax.com>
<ymAJf2CimiciFAGM@perry.uk>
<hq067h9j7g1s4ubdlsrkp473sh2o14f96d@4ax.com>
<hB79mMyN75ciFAXL@perry.uk>
<cht87hdvht86lfo9uui3b5k9ssumr47tds@4ax.com>
<gAntmLV7LRdiFAf9@perry.uk>
<28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>
<9e7KhMlJXjdiFA95@perry.uk>
<t55i5n$p35$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t55kkq$2nb$1@dont-email.me>
<t565vt$136s$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me>
<t56n32$ff3$1@dont-email.me>
<t58s9i$vil$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 17:55:51 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="3f85e3c12d848f03058bf125fe30b633";
logging-data="31749"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+MnqXpNrOE0ByVuZC6umjr"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lKboSs40HE4ZgsqK2DbEUBGtX+w=
sha1:MD+3hcOHFPd4bRBNRcpx/lw6ZVQ=
 by: Sam Wilson - Sun, 8 May 2022 17:55 UTC

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> "Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me...
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 11:19:54 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 10:03:05 +0100
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>, at 17:15:18
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> fatter one along the street) are far more robust than telephone
>>>>>>>>> wires.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why wouldn't it be?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because in Muttley-world it wasn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not try and tear some standard copper phone cable apart with your
>>>>>> bare
>>>>>> hands then get back to me about how weak it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> And then try and cut it with a pair of scissors, or walk over it a few
>>>>> times in heavy boots; then try the same with a typical power cable.
>>>>
>>>> Its not going to be cut or walked over is it? Its in a conduit or cabinet
>>>> safely tucked away. The only time it'll get broken is if someone messes
>>>> about with it. The only exception would be overhead wires from poles to
>>>> houses but I've never seen one break yet.
>>>
>>> Rewinding quite a bit on this thread, the reliability of the copper local
>>> loop has something but not too much with its impending replacement with
>>> fibre. If you are OpenReach with copper that can at best supply 80
>>> Mbit/sec
>>> down and 20 up, and your competitors come along with fibre that can manage
>>> an order of magnitude better at the same price, which one is the the
>>> average customer going to buy? OR have to move to fibre to survive in the
>>> market place.
>>
>> Many years ago my parents had a problem with a phone line that constantly
>> crackled, so the GPO engineer (this was before BT) changed he drop cable,
>> after eliminating wiring problems upstream. And he have me the old drop
>> cable. So I know how rugged drop cable (in the 1970s) was. You couldn't rip
>> it or cut it with scissors. Even splitting the insulation between the two
>> cores (at the centre of the figure of 8 cross-section) needed many strokes
>> with a sharp knife. And being ductile copper, it doesn't break if the wire
>> is bent backwards and forwards many times.
>>
>> Is modern drop cable the same spec? Assuming it's proper copper cable rather
>> than aluminium coated with copper...
>>
>>
>> The wires of the "pairs" in the underground bundles from the exchange to the
>> green cabinet and from there to the pole are a lot thinner (otherwise the
>> bundle would be f-ing enormous!) but then they are not subject to the same
>> stresses as an overhead drop cable. I can't remember: do they use the same
>> spec of overhead drop cable between an underground junction box and the
>> master socket in your house if you have underground rather than overhead
>> cable?
>>
>>
>
> Around 30 years ago a friend had wired a model tram layout with some
> (unused) telephone cable. The (four?) coloured wires I remember (though it
> was some time ago) being what you'd now find behind a domestic phone socket
> (single-strand, thin, stays bent when you bend it); there were also four
> yellow wires of multiple-strand, much less pliable metal, which IIRC didn't
> like staying where you bent it to. Enquiries to a telephone engineer who
> was in the local am-dram society determined that those wires are what comes
> out of the cable as a whole, to be fixed to the supports at the ends.

So strength members rather than conductors?

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

<t590ih$2b7$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29228&group=uk.railway#29228

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ukr...@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk (Sam Wilson)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and
Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 18:01:53 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 118
Message-ID: <t590ih$2b7$1@dont-email.me>
References: <TtZxNUWEPMciFACl@perry.uk>
<u0g37h11baihbcsk7ufs12ld6lkjrnjhpb@4ax.com>
<ymAJf2CimiciFAGM@perry.uk>
<hq067h9j7g1s4ubdlsrkp473sh2o14f96d@4ax.com>
<hB79mMyN75ciFAXL@perry.uk>
<cht87hdvht86lfo9uui3b5k9ssumr47tds@4ax.com>
<gAntmLV7LRdiFAf9@perry.uk>
<28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>
<9e7KhMlJXjdiFA95@perry.uk>
<t55i5n$p35$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t55kkq$2nb$1@dont-email.me>
<t565vt$136s$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me>
<y7CZ46RuV7diFA$x@perry.uk>
<3mff7hl713e52uahoanc5ie6hc9686lc6v@4ax.com>
<utC+9aXvh8diFAN$@perry.uk>
<t58krv$5jv$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 18:01:53 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="3f85e3c12d848f03058bf125fe30b633";
logging-data="2407"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+03wQA5mUfX6UbQvYj3/T2"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:quUXfn/4AvFNEIFU48V9ZSwTwfM=
sha1:YuoXrPk32ruOslWN169G1uJX5ig=
 by: Sam Wilson - Sun, 8 May 2022 18:01 UTC

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <3mff7hl713e52uahoanc5ie6hc9686lc6v@4ax.com>, at 14:00:55 on
>> Sun, 8 May 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Sun, 8 May 2022 13:19:58 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:03:39 on Sat, 7 May 2022,
>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 11:19:54 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 10:03:05 +0100
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>, at 17:15:18 on
>>>>>>>>>>> fatter one along the street) are far more robust than telephone wires.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why wouldn't it be?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because in Muttley-world it wasn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why not try and tear some standard copper phone cable apart with
>>>>>>>> your bare
>>>>>>>> hands then get back to me about how weak it is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And then try and cut it with a pair of scissors, or walk over it a few
>>>>>>> times in heavy boots; then try the same with a typical power cable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Its not going to be cut or walked over is it? Its in a conduit or cabinet
>>>>>> safely tucked away. The only time it'll get broken is if someone messes
>>>>>> about with it. The only exception would be overhead wires from poles to
>>>>>> houses but I've never seen one break yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rewinding quite a bit on this thread, the reliability of the copper local
>>>>> loop has something but not too much with its impending replacement with
>>>>> fibre. If you are OpenReach with copper that can at best supply 80 Mbit/sec
>>>>> down and 20 up, and your competitors come along with fibre that can manage
>>>>> an order of magnitude better at the same price, which one is the the
>>>>> average customer going to buy? OR have to move to fibre to survive in the
>>>>> market place.
>>>>
>>>> That's not true because if they try hard they can deliver 300Mbps on the
>>>> copper (that's what I have at the moment), in the urban and semi-urban
>>>> areas that might be the ones someone else would offer cable.
>>>
>>> Is that FTTC or FTTP?
>>
>> It's FTTC, and the final throw of the dice for copper-to-the-premises.
>> Most resellers won't guarantee more than about 160Mbps, but I seem to be
>> lucky in having towards the upper end of the 330Mbps theoretical limit.
>>
>> Frankly, I'd have preferred FTTP, but Openreach haven't done that in my
>> street yet. And with the "end of copper" deadline heading for the long
>> grass, I decided I didn't want to wait.
>>
>>>> But who are Openreach's competitors most of the country? Virgin's
>>>> precursors gave up extending their network 20yrs ago.
>>>
>>> There are plenty of local FTTP competitors, but I'm not sure if there
>>> are any national ones.
>>
>> Are those FTTP competitors using their own networks, dug by them through
>> the streets; or are they Piggy-backing Openreach's FTTP? In a sense LLU,
>> but in this case the local [all the way back to wherever Openreach's
>> head end is] loop is fibre, not copper.
>>
>>>> There's no Virgin here, and actually only two LLU.
>>
>
> Read up on CityFibres plans and financing. They are digging round here and
> intend to (and nearby are) offer service in the same streets as Virgin
> Media and OpenReach. They aren’t the only ones going for the suburban
> market.
>
> https://cityfibre.com/about-us/our-network
>
>
> CF lay their own fibre, mainly in their own ducts (purple pipes) but
> sometime seem to use existing OR ducts into the house. They have their own
> head end “exchanges”. Unlike OR’s FTTP, CF offer symmetric up and down
> speeds up to 1 GBit/sec. It’s a wholesale network and you can choose from a
> number of retail provides. Vodafone and Zen seem to be the main players at
> the moment.
>
> Your high speed FTTC connection only works because you are very near to
> your cabinet, so you are lucky. It’s nothing to do with OR trying harder.
> Most FTTC customers aren’t even close enough to get the basic 80 Mbit/sec
> speed.
>
> https://cloudandfibre.co.uk/what-is-gfast/
>
> “GFast works in a very similar way to FTTC but extra specialised equipment
> is fitted to the BT cabinet to alter the speed frequencies of the
> connection. This change within the frequencies increases the speed through
> the copper cable which results in a more reliable broadband with ultrafast
> speeds. GFast users are typically located no more than 500 metres from
> their local BT cabinet.”
>
> Virgin Media have said they are going to replace their entire hybrid
> coax/fibre network with proper fibre (and eliminate the DOCSIS bodge) over
> the next 7 years - so they’ve noticed they have to invest to survive. If OR
> sticks with copper they’ll be left without a viable business in the long
> term, being left with only the expensive to service rural customers.

I’m doing some volunteering work for a centre on Arran, about 8 miles from
the metropolis of Brodick. The only provider is BT - there’s a community
broadband operation but they only work in the south end of the island - and
the best BT can offer, even after replacing the old buried cable from the
pole to the premises, is 20 Mbps down,3.6 Mbps up; IIRC they say “up to 24
Mbps”. That’s FTTC and looking at some published stuff that seems to imply
>1 mile to the cabinet, which probably puts it in the next village.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

<t590m0$32b$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29229&group=uk.railway#29229

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ukr...@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk (Sam Wilson)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and
Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 18:03:44 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <t590m0$32b$1@dont-email.me>
References: <w1n5r7amn3aiFAGJ@perry.uk>
<t4g4gf$b5l$1@dont-email.me>
<7wer6JjCw8aiFAWW@perry.uk>
<s8pn6htjchk7s5g74pri082u3mdui14s7r@4ax.com>
<t4gvvf$1db2$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<rn4o6hd73jv0kl7d365gp5nhud8khqmpjp@4ax.com>
<t4jmqh$rse$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<Mxs2apNMvWbiFAZR@perry.uk>
<t4m9bi$d7c$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t4p2sl$o81$1@dont-email.me>
<A6gFYSUh9LciFAwM@perry.uk>
<t4tbiq$6up$1@dont-email.me>
<zgSp+6VtURdiFA+A@perry.uk>
<t53828$9ne$1@dont-email.me>
<p99a7h1hses2g7a0tiul6q3bs8nio1ahk6@4ax.com>
<lxw8aifkkSdiFAMV@perry.uk>
<t53foa$lbk$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<XKaA0cUNp7diFA4u@perry.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 18:03:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="3f85e3c12d848f03058bf125fe30b633";
logging-data="3147"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19IRLSp4b3U0IcvFjZkl0SI"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:heAMYp+dYRZWkU0U+sM7F+G3Y4c=
sha1:KPPimMtBEVFLSBS+maV4YGD/PFM=
 by: Sam Wilson - Sun, 8 May 2022 18:03 UTC

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <t53foa$lbk$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 15:44:10 on Fri, 6 May
> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>> On Fri, 6 May 2022 14:56:52 +0100
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <p99a7h1hses2g7a0tiul6q3bs8nio1ahk6@4ax.com>, at 14:40:34 on
>>> Fri, 6 May 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> In what sense is the "cloud" not a line? It still consists of physically
>>>>> connected components despite the marketing name.
>>>>
>>>> Might there not be satellite, microwave or WiFi links along the way?
>>>
>>> Shush! I wasn't going to raise that. However, especially on bad
>>> connections, the packets might not even be flowing through all
>>> the same routers from one second to the next.
>>
>> "Cloud" is nothing more than marketdroid terminology for the internet.
>> The latter sounds techy and scary, the former warm and fluffy and doesn't
>> scare off the dimwit techno illiterates in the boardroom.
>
> Once again, you fail to distinguish between the cloud-services/cloud
> storage, and the stuff which connects it all together.

Which, I will repeat, was never referred to as a cloud until cloud services
came along.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

<t591rs$cpj$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29230&group=uk.railway#29230

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ann...@noyd-dryver.com (Anna Noyd-Dryver)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and
Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 18:23:56 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 83
Message-ID: <t591rs$cpj$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4gapj$s76$1@dont-email.me>
<+AHqmHilm8aiFAVQ@perry.uk>
<t4gjdj$ul5$1@dont-email.me>
<t4gvm3$18ui$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<hF$9npxCCNbiFAPP@perry.uk>
<t4jn2k$vms$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<HBT0mKNzsWbiFA6D@perry.uk>
<t4m97g$bbb$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<TtZxNUWEPMciFACl@perry.uk>
<u0g37h11baihbcsk7ufs12ld6lkjrnjhpb@4ax.com>
<ymAJf2CimiciFAGM@perry.uk>
<hq067h9j7g1s4ubdlsrkp473sh2o14f96d@4ax.com>
<hB79mMyN75ciFAXL@perry.uk>
<cht87hdvht86lfo9uui3b5k9ssumr47tds@4ax.com>
<gAntmLV7LRdiFAf9@perry.uk>
<28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>
<9e7KhMlJXjdiFA95@perry.uk>
<t55i5n$p35$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t55kkq$2nb$1@dont-email.me>
<t565vt$136s$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me>
<t56n32$ff3$1@dont-email.me>
<t58s9i$vil$2@dont-email.me>
<t59077$v05$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 18:23:56 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="f32751cf460c83093e4a497dc77bef9b";
logging-data="13107"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX197sUuQEpTz1TNRgI16AEZunptyeSr9c38="
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ZW3sDLCaM0O46K1hh0ffPHzX7iQ=
sha1:qM0auisxIHFYILs18YQrvNZgfZs=
 by: Anna Noyd-Dryver - Sun, 8 May 2022 18:23 UTC

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
>> NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 11:19:54 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 10:03:05 +0100
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>, at 17:15:18
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>> fatter one along the street) are far more robust than telephone
>>>>>>>>>> wires.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why wouldn't it be?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because in Muttley-world it wasn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why not try and tear some standard copper phone cable apart with your
>>>>>>> bare
>>>>>>> hands then get back to me about how weak it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And then try and cut it with a pair of scissors, or walk over it a few
>>>>>> times in heavy boots; then try the same with a typical power cable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Its not going to be cut or walked over is it? Its in a conduit or cabinet
>>>>> safely tucked away. The only time it'll get broken is if someone messes
>>>>> about with it. The only exception would be overhead wires from poles to
>>>>> houses but I've never seen one break yet.
>>>>
>>>> Rewinding quite a bit on this thread, the reliability of the copper local
>>>> loop has something but not too much with its impending replacement with
>>>> fibre. If you are OpenReach with copper that can at best supply 80
>>>> Mbit/sec
>>>> down and 20 up, and your competitors come along with fibre that can manage
>>>> an order of magnitude better at the same price, which one is the the
>>>> average customer going to buy? OR have to move to fibre to survive in the
>>>> market place.
>>>
>>> Many years ago my parents had a problem with a phone line that constantly
>>> crackled, so the GPO engineer (this was before BT) changed he drop cable,
>>> after eliminating wiring problems upstream. And he have me the old drop
>>> cable. So I know how rugged drop cable (in the 1970s) was. You couldn't rip
>>> it or cut it with scissors. Even splitting the insulation between the two
>>> cores (at the centre of the figure of 8 cross-section) needed many strokes
>>> with a sharp knife. And being ductile copper, it doesn't break if the wire
>>> is bent backwards and forwards many times.
>>>
>>> Is modern drop cable the same spec? Assuming it's proper copper cable rather
>>> than aluminium coated with copper...
>>>
>>>
>>> The wires of the "pairs" in the underground bundles from the exchange to the
>>> green cabinet and from there to the pole are a lot thinner (otherwise the
>>> bundle would be f-ing enormous!) but then they are not subject to the same
>>> stresses as an overhead drop cable. I can't remember: do they use the same
>>> spec of overhead drop cable between an underground junction box and the
>>> master socket in your house if you have underground rather than overhead
>>> cable?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Around 30 years ago a friend had wired a model tram layout with some
>> (unused) telephone cable. The (four?) coloured wires I remember (though it
>> was some time ago) being what you'd now find behind a domestic phone socket
>> (single-strand, thin, stays bent when you bend it); there were also four
>> yellow wires of multiple-strand, much less pliable metal, which IIRC didn't
>> like staying where you bent it to. Enquiries to a telephone engineer who
>> was in the local am-dram society determined that those wires are what comes
>> out of the cable as a whole, to be fixed to the supports at the ends.
>
> So strength members rather than conductors?
>
>

Exactly that. Though my friend used them as conductors, just sometimes
found them awkward to get into terminal blocks and behaving properly.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

<rmcg7hl0im4ulgb5doa10qc0ovj9rs34js@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29243&group=uk.railway#29243

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: charlese...@btinternet.com (Charles Ellson)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and
Date: Sun, 08 May 2022 22:29:27 +0100
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <rmcg7hl0im4ulgb5doa10qc0ovj9rs34js@4ax.com>
References: <t4m97g$bbb$1@gioia.aioe.org> <TtZxNUWEPMciFACl@perry.uk> <u0g37h11baihbcsk7ufs12ld6lkjrnjhpb@4ax.com> <ymAJf2CimiciFAGM@perry.uk> <hq067h9j7g1s4ubdlsrkp473sh2o14f96d@4ax.com> <hB79mMyN75ciFAXL@perry.uk> <cht87hdvht86lfo9uui3b5k9ssumr47tds@4ax.com> <gAntmLV7LRdiFAf9@perry.uk> <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com> <9e7KhMlJXjdiFA95@perry.uk> <t55i5n$p35$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t55kkq$2nb$1@dont-email.me> <mYCsw6ttBndiFA$X@perry.uk> <t5669u$9km$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net gXQk2YpeWeJ/3x67K9WccQyDBZlTioeT+RnaEbqzyFzxZoY/H0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Czv4/nZOoyoABaD2eBSUiRrlwpU=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 220508-8, 8/5/2022), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
 by: Charles Ellson - Sun, 8 May 2022 21:29 UTC

On Sat, 7 May 2022 16:21:18 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <t55kkq$2nb$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:19:54 on Sat, 7 May 2022,
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 10:03:05 +0100
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>, at 17:15:18 on
>>>>>>> fatter one along the street) are far more robust than telephone wires.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why wouldn't it be?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because in Muttley-world it wasn't.
>>>>
>>>> Why not try and tear some standard copper phone cable apart with your bare
>>>> hands then get back to me about how weak it is.
>>>
>>> And then try and cut it with a pair of scissors, or walk over it a few
>>> times in heavy boots; then try the same with a typical power cable.
>>
>> And it's the multiple joints which are just as fragile.
>
>Good point. Rip this apart with your bare hands
><https://telecomsystemsuk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/telephone-wiring-page.jpg>
>and then try again with this
><https://live.staticflickr.com/3929/15535219652_218d368a48.jpg>.
>
That is wandering off a bit from cables. Up to a particular size you
will cause damage quicker by bending/twisting a telecommunications
cable than the same diameter SWA electric cable. Cutting a
telecommunications cable with a knife (e.g. GPO/PO/BT Knife, Pocket
No.2) will cause significant damage in seconds while trying the same
with SWA will blunt the knife with no immediate practical effect on
the main insulation.

Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

<0kdg7h11as53sajpvau0c3sjhvlqulikrh@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29245&group=uk.railway#29245

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: charlese...@btinternet.com (Charles Ellson)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and
Date: Sun, 08 May 2022 22:41:49 +0100
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <0kdg7h11as53sajpvau0c3sjhvlqulikrh@4ax.com>
References: <HBT0mKNzsWbiFA6D@perry.uk> <t4m97g$bbb$1@gioia.aioe.org> <TtZxNUWEPMciFACl@perry.uk> <u0g37h11baihbcsk7ufs12ld6lkjrnjhpb@4ax.com> <ymAJf2CimiciFAGM@perry.uk> <hq067h9j7g1s4ubdlsrkp473sh2o14f96d@4ax.com> <hB79mMyN75ciFAXL@perry.uk> <cht87hdvht86lfo9uui3b5k9ssumr47tds@4ax.com> <gAntmLV7LRdiFAf9@perry.uk> <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com> <9e7KhMlJXjdiFA95@perry.uk> <t55i5n$p35$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t55kkq$2nb$1@dont-email.me> <t565vt$136s$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net puC5HAt/+RHjcZSkEad6ywfJ6wcbZU/xb3axbKgAUDCK7jT2qD
Cancel-Lock: sha1:QgwhiGz71rAMeJfqF1Xw0C0H4RM=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 220508-8, 8/5/2022), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
 by: Charles Ellson - Sun, 8 May 2022 21:41 UTC

On Sat, 7 May 2022 16:15:57 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Sat, 7 May 2022 11:19:54 -0000 (UTC)
>Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 10:03:05 +0100
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>, at 17:15:18 on
>>>>>> fatter one along the street) are far more robust than telephone wires.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why wouldn't it be?
>>>>
>>>> Because in Muttley-world it wasn't.
>>>
>>> Why not try and tear some standard copper phone cable apart with your bare
>>> hands then get back to me about how weak it is.
>>
>>And then try and cut it with a pair of scissors, or walk over it a few
>>times in heavy boots; then try the same with a typical power cable.
>
>Its not going to be cut or walked over is it? Its in a conduit or cabinet
>safely tucked away. The only time it'll get broken is if someone messes
>about with it. The only exception would be overhead wires from poles to
>houses but I've never seen one break yet.
>
Telecommunications cable is not typically mechanically protected to
the extent that electric cable is. It is not normally armoured and in
most places the final length to individual premises is in the open
air. Even in duct it is not safe where there is e.g. pavement parking
causing cumulative damage.
Dropwire doesn't always break, it can rip out the attachments from the
subscriber end, sometimes with bits of the woodwork to which it is
attached. Aerial cable almost never breaks; it usually pulls the pole
over or takes a bit of building with it when you drive an overheight
lorry through it.

Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

<iceg7h9n94785kjoqglcvaulmcdbk84esi@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29246&group=uk.railway#29246

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!aioe.org!news.uzoreto.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: charlese...@btinternet.com (Charles Ellson)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and
Date: Sun, 08 May 2022 22:44:46 +0100
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <iceg7h9n94785kjoqglcvaulmcdbk84esi@4ax.com>
References: <t4m97g$bbb$1@gioia.aioe.org> <TtZxNUWEPMciFACl@perry.uk> <u0g37h11baihbcsk7ufs12ld6lkjrnjhpb@4ax.com> <ymAJf2CimiciFAGM@perry.uk> <hq067h9j7g1s4ubdlsrkp473sh2o14f96d@4ax.com> <hB79mMyN75ciFAXL@perry.uk> <cht87hdvht86lfo9uui3b5k9ssumr47tds@4ax.com> <gAntmLV7LRdiFAf9@perry.uk> <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com> <9e7KhMlJXjdiFA95@perry.uk> <t55i5n$p35$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t55kkq$2nb$1@dont-email.me> <t565vt$136s$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net lSOeVmHy34a9S1OBVXOKkQL/Gd+8La+v+7gIXhrsuf2YXhsxAJ
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5M8OhYeNclZw9ARSNk3qzsVL06c=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 220508-8, 8/5/2022), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
 by: Charles Ellson - Sun, 8 May 2022 21:44 UTC

On Sat, 7 May 2022 19:03:39 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 11:19:54 -0000 (UTC)
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 10:03:05 +0100
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>, at 17:15:18 on
>>>>>>> fatter one along the street) are far more robust than telephone wires.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why wouldn't it be?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because in Muttley-world it wasn't.
>>>>
>>>> Why not try and tear some standard copper phone cable apart with your bare
>>>> hands then get back to me about how weak it is.
>>>
>>> And then try and cut it with a pair of scissors, or walk over it a few
>>> times in heavy boots; then try the same with a typical power cable.
>>
>> Its not going to be cut or walked over is it? Its in a conduit or cabinet
>> safely tucked away. The only time it'll get broken is if someone messes
>> about with it. The only exception would be overhead wires from poles to
>> houses but I've never seen one break yet.
>>
>>
>
>Rewinding quite a bit on this thread, the reliability of the copper local
>loop has something but not too much with its impending replacement with
>fibre. If you are OpenReach with copper that can at best supply 80 Mbit/sec
>down and 20 up, and your competitors come along with fibre that can manage
>an order of magnitude better at the same price, which one is the the
>average customer going to buy? OR have to move to fibre to survive in the
>market place.
>
Which does the average customer[TM] actually need?

Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

<t59epi$l1r$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29247&group=uk.railway#29247

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: recliner...@gmail.com (Recliner)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and
Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 22:04:34 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 51
Message-ID: <t59epi$l1r$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4m97g$bbb$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<TtZxNUWEPMciFACl@perry.uk>
<u0g37h11baihbcsk7ufs12ld6lkjrnjhpb@4ax.com>
<ymAJf2CimiciFAGM@perry.uk>
<hq067h9j7g1s4ubdlsrkp473sh2o14f96d@4ax.com>
<hB79mMyN75ciFAXL@perry.uk>
<cht87hdvht86lfo9uui3b5k9ssumr47tds@4ax.com>
<gAntmLV7LRdiFAf9@perry.uk>
<28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>
<9e7KhMlJXjdiFA95@perry.uk>
<t55i5n$p35$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t55kkq$2nb$1@dont-email.me>
<t565vt$136s$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me>
<iceg7h9n94785kjoqglcvaulmcdbk84esi@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 22:04:34 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="a6d7212da2d082d30e798ef17e68454e";
logging-data="21563"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19HUbi29Dl3HykfxDuyb9RXWcloyj/2qI4="
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nWfhSs6nWPAfxJ/4W6s4I7wxcGQ=
sha1:ZBioVPU8aLmINGFabgisbroYiAM=
 by: Recliner - Sun, 8 May 2022 22:04 UTC

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2022 19:03:39 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 11:19:54 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 10:03:05 +0100
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>, at 17:15:18 on
>>>>>>>> fatter one along the street) are far more robust than telephone wires.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why wouldn't it be?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because in Muttley-world it wasn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not try and tear some standard copper phone cable apart with your bare
>>>>> hands then get back to me about how weak it is.
>>>>
>>>> And then try and cut it with a pair of scissors, or walk over it a few
>>>> times in heavy boots; then try the same with a typical power cable.
>>>
>>> Its not going to be cut or walked over is it? Its in a conduit or cabinet
>>> safely tucked away. The only time it'll get broken is if someone messes
>>> about with it. The only exception would be overhead wires from poles to
>>> houses but I've never seen one break yet.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Rewinding quite a bit on this thread, the reliability of the copper local
>> loop has something but not too much with its impending replacement with
>> fibre. If you are OpenReach with copper that can at best supply 80 Mbit/sec
>> down and 20 up, and your competitors come along with fibre that can manage
>> an order of magnitude better at the same price, which one is the the
>> average customer going to buy? OR have to move to fibre to survive in the
>> market place.
>>
> Which does the average customer[TM] actually need?
>

A family with multiple teenagers playing high res online games or
downloading 4k movies might well need well over 100Mbps; a single person
who does no more than stream HD content needs no more than 10Mbps.

I have 500Mbps, both up and down, which is far more than I need, but it's
good for near instant cloud backups or rapid downloading of software
updates. But I must admit that I don't notice any practical difference
since I upgraded from a mere 150Mbps. But I now pay less for the rock solid
500/500 FTTP than I did for BT's ropey 50/20 FTTC.

Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

<t59eus$mbk$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29249&group=uk.railway#29249

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ukr...@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk (Sam Wilson)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and
Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 22:07:24 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <t59eus$mbk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4m97g$bbb$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<TtZxNUWEPMciFACl@perry.uk>
<u0g37h11baihbcsk7ufs12ld6lkjrnjhpb@4ax.com>
<ymAJf2CimiciFAGM@perry.uk>
<hq067h9j7g1s4ubdlsrkp473sh2o14f96d@4ax.com>
<hB79mMyN75ciFAXL@perry.uk>
<cht87hdvht86lfo9uui3b5k9ssumr47tds@4ax.com>
<gAntmLV7LRdiFAf9@perry.uk>
<28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>
<9e7KhMlJXjdiFA95@perry.uk>
<t55i5n$p35$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t55kkq$2nb$1@dont-email.me>
<mYCsw6ttBndiFA$X@perry.uk>
<t5669u$9km$1@dont-email.me>
<rmcg7hl0im4ulgb5doa10qc0ovj9rs34js@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 22:07:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="197b1d251b95edcf1684e01fb4ddfb3d";
logging-data="22900"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+SCCGFOo/dJ9+u9shuR3VG"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kAKioYix28FtFBZ/bdlfikHbDO0=
sha1:0enUJKDeBe6exz9/AUqF96aON9Y=
 by: Sam Wilson - Sun, 8 May 2022 22:07 UTC

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 May 2022 16:21:18 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <t55kkq$2nb$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:19:54 on Sat, 7 May 2022,
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 10:03:05 +0100
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>, at 17:15:18 on
>>>>>>>> fatter one along the street) are far more robust than telephone wires.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why wouldn't it be?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because in Muttley-world it wasn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not try and tear some standard copper phone cable apart with your bare
>>>>> hands then get back to me about how weak it is.
>>>>
>>>> And then try and cut it with a pair of scissors, or walk over it a few
>>>> times in heavy boots; then try the same with a typical power cable.
>>>
>>> And it's the multiple joints which are just as fragile.
>>
>> Good point. Rip this apart with your bare hands
>> <https://telecomsystemsuk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/telephone-wiring-page.jpg>
>> and then try again with this
>> <https://live.staticflickr.com/3929/15535219652_218d368a48.jpg>.
>>
> That is wandering off a bit from cables. Up to a particular size you
> will cause damage quicker by bending/twisting a telecommunications
> cable than the same diameter SWA electric cable. Cutting a
> telecommunications cable with a knife (e.g. GPO/PO/BT Knife, Pocket
> No.2) will cause significant damage in seconds while trying the same
> with SWA will blunt the knife with no immediate practical effect on
> the main insulation.

I also forgot to mention squirrels, which took a liking to some of our data
cables.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

<t59f60$o11$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29250&group=uk.railway#29250

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: ukr...@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk (Sam Wilson)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and
Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 22:11:12 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <t59f60$o11$1@dont-email.me>
References: <t4m97g$bbb$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<TtZxNUWEPMciFACl@perry.uk>
<u0g37h11baihbcsk7ufs12ld6lkjrnjhpb@4ax.com>
<ymAJf2CimiciFAGM@perry.uk>
<hq067h9j7g1s4ubdlsrkp473sh2o14f96d@4ax.com>
<hB79mMyN75ciFAXL@perry.uk>
<cht87hdvht86lfo9uui3b5k9ssumr47tds@4ax.com>
<gAntmLV7LRdiFAf9@perry.uk>
<28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>
<9e7KhMlJXjdiFA95@perry.uk>
<t55i5n$p35$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t55kkq$2nb$1@dont-email.me>
<t565vt$136s$1@gioia.aioe.org>
<t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me>
<iceg7h9n94785kjoqglcvaulmcdbk84esi@4ax.com>
<t59epi$l1r$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 8 May 2022 22:11:12 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="197b1d251b95edcf1684e01fb4ddfb3d";
logging-data="24609"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+DWDRruMoPyyGDAQ0xkl+g"
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.5 (iPad)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NnvDarj3brM3aQDuLFV9nAo0UW0=
sha1:Np/W7bAxfrNS5HXDrszDG5+uD/0=
 by: Sam Wilson - Sun, 8 May 2022 22:11 UTC

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 19:03:39 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 11:19:54 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 10:03:05 +0100
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>, at 17:15:18 on
>>>>>>>>> fatter one along the street) are far more robust than telephone wires.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why wouldn't it be?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because in Muttley-world it wasn't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why not try and tear some standard copper phone cable apart with your bare
>>>>>> hands then get back to me about how weak it is.
>>>>>
>>>>> And then try and cut it with a pair of scissors, or walk over it a few
>>>>> times in heavy boots; then try the same with a typical power cable.
>>>>
>>>> Its not going to be cut or walked over is it? Its in a conduit or cabinet
>>>> safely tucked away. The only time it'll get broken is if someone messes
>>>> about with it. The only exception would be overhead wires from poles to
>>>> houses but I've never seen one break yet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Rewinding quite a bit on this thread, the reliability of the copper local
>>> loop has something but not too much with its impending replacement with
>>> fibre. If you are OpenReach with copper that can at best supply 80 Mbit/sec
>>> down and 20 up, and your competitors come along with fibre that can manage
>>> an order of magnitude better at the same price, which one is the the
>>> average customer going to buy? OR have to move to fibre to survive in the
>>> market place.
>>>
>> Which does the average customer[TM] actually need?
>>
>
> A family with multiple teenagers playing high res online games or
> downloading 4k movies might well need well over 100Mbps; a single person
> who does no more than stream HD content needs no more than 10Mbps.
>
> I have 500Mbps, both up and down, which is far more than I need, but it's
> good for near instant cloud backups or rapid downloading of software
> updates. But I must admit that I don't notice any practical difference
> since I upgraded from a mere 150Mbps. But I now pay less for the rock solid
> 500/500 FTTP than I did for BT's ropey 50/20 FTTC.

In our University context the place where we really struggled for bandwidth
(not helped by some of our server-specifying staff occasionally not
speaking to the network team before installing new kit) was to the backup
servers, which backed up file servers from all over the University.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

<1rgg7hdr2uu33sd1ildkmjra3po1n1n8bi@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29252&group=uk.railway#29252

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!news.freedyn.de!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: charlese...@btinternet.com (Charles Ellson)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and
Date: Sun, 08 May 2022 23:27:12 +0100
Lines: 87
Message-ID: <1rgg7hdr2uu33sd1ildkmjra3po1n1n8bi@4ax.com>
References: <TtZxNUWEPMciFACl@perry.uk> <u0g37h11baihbcsk7ufs12ld6lkjrnjhpb@4ax.com> <ymAJf2CimiciFAGM@perry.uk> <hq067h9j7g1s4ubdlsrkp473sh2o14f96d@4ax.com> <hB79mMyN75ciFAXL@perry.uk> <cht87hdvht86lfo9uui3b5k9ssumr47tds@4ax.com> <gAntmLV7LRdiFAf9@perry.uk> <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com> <9e7KhMlJXjdiFA95@perry.uk> <t55i5n$p35$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t55kkq$2nb$1@dont-email.me> <t565vt$136s$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me> <t56n32$ff3$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net ZY5O3bM49JfmXlGnH16iTg25bedyehhGX7g8sNV59CF0pBujre
Cancel-Lock: sha1:O42FKLDQ1zBLO0ftDVS5XUjyMuM=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 220508-8, 8/5/2022), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
 by: Charles Ellson - Sun, 8 May 2022 22:27 UTC

On Sat, 7 May 2022 21:47:22 +0100, "NY" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>"Tweed" <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:t56fqb$ni3$1@dont-email.me...
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 11:19:54 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 7 May 2022 10:03:05 +0100
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <28ia7hltm2uf8ri8aakvg2qfr5uhm0gs4v@4ax.com>, at 17:15:18
>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> fatter one along the street) are far more robust than telephone
>>>>>>>> wires.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why wouldn't it be?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because in Muttley-world it wasn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why not try and tear some standard copper phone cable apart with your
>>>>> bare
>>>>> hands then get back to me about how weak it is.
>>>>
>>>> And then try and cut it with a pair of scissors, or walk over it a few
>>>> times in heavy boots; then try the same with a typical power cable.
>>>
>>> Its not going to be cut or walked over is it? Its in a conduit or cabinet
>>> safely tucked away. The only time it'll get broken is if someone messes
>>> about with it. The only exception would be overhead wires from poles to
>>> houses but I've never seen one break yet.
>>
>> Rewinding quite a bit on this thread, the reliability of the copper local
>> loop has something but not too much with its impending replacement with
>> fibre. If you are OpenReach with copper that can at best supply 80
>> Mbit/sec
>> down and 20 up, and your competitors come along with fibre that can manage
>> an order of magnitude better at the same price, which one is the the
>> average customer going to buy? OR have to move to fibre to survive in the
>> market place.
>
>Many years ago my parents had a problem with a phone line that constantly
>crackled, so the GPO engineer (this was before BT) changed he drop cable,
>after eliminating wiring problems upstream. And he have me the old drop
>cable. So I know how rugged drop cable (in the 1970s) was. You couldn't rip
>it or cut it with scissors. Even splitting the insulation between the two
>cores (at the centre of the figure of 8 cross-section) needed many strokes
>with a sharp knife. And being ductile copper, it doesn't break if the wire
>is bent backwards and forwards many times.
>
If it was figure of 8 and grey then it would have been copper-coated
steel conductors (Dropwire No. 3 or 4, often thrown in the nearest bin
unless there was a lot of it recovered). Older stuff (usually black)
was IIRC cadmium copper.

>Is modern drop cable the same spec? Assuming it's proper copper cable rather
>than aluminium coated with copper...
>
Newer dropwire was/is copper conductors bundled in a round sheath with
insulated steel wires (occasionally used as a quick and dirty
substitute for damaged/insufficient copper wires).
[https://www.britishtelephones.com/overhead/dropwire.htm]
>
>The wires of the "pairs" in the underground bundles from the exchange to the
>green cabinet and from there to the pole are a lot thinner (otherwise the
>bundle would be f-ing enormous!) but then they are not subject to the same
>stresses as an overhead drop cable. I can't remember: do they use the same
>spec of overhead drop cable between an underground junction box and the
>master socket in your house if you have underground rather than overhead
>cable?

Aerial cable has a different structure from dropwire, more or less
ordinary multi-pair with a supporting steel cable moulded into an
assymetrical figure of eight.
see Fig.1B in -
https://www.britishtelephones.com/overhead/aerialcabless.htm

Common routes will normally use aerial cable (or dropwire for two
circuits) but you can sometimes see two dropwires where one has
followed later. OTOH you might also see aerial cable where single
premises are on a very long feed. You were never allowed to take
dropwire into an underground cable joint and I don't thank that has
changed with the current stuff as it is not jelly-filled. Older
dropwires required suitable terminal blocks for termination due to the
size and rigidity of the conductors. External cable was (is still?)
not allowed to be taken beyond the point where the premises were
entered (interpreted appropriately if it enters via a garage,
basement, corridor or other non-living space).

Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and

<66hg7h5ju801po4lsurtivi8uqhfslfrkj@4ax.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/aus+uk/article-flat.php?id=29253&group=uk.railway#29253

 copy link   Newsgroups: uk.railway
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.goja.nl.eu.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: charlese...@btinternet.com (Charles Ellson)
Newsgroups: uk.railway
Subject: Re: London Underground: Track inspector hit by Tube near Chalfont and
Date: Sun, 08 May 2022 23:32:02 +0100
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <66hg7h5ju801po4lsurtivi8uqhfslfrkj@4ax.com>
References: <7wer6JjCw8aiFAWW@perry.uk> <s8pn6htjchk7s5g74pri082u3mdui14s7r@4ax.com> <t4gvvf$1db2$1@gioia.aioe.org> <rn4o6hd73jv0kl7d365gp5nhud8khqmpjp@4ax.com> <t4jmqh$rse$1@gioia.aioe.org> <Mxs2apNMvWbiFAZR@perry.uk> <t4m9bi$d7c$1@gioia.aioe.org> <t4p2sl$o81$1@dont-email.me> <A6gFYSUh9LciFAwM@perry.uk> <t4tbiq$6up$1@dont-email.me> <zgSp+6VtURdiFA+A@perry.uk> <t53828$9ne$1@dont-email.me> <rhe$+BfdiSdiFANz@perry.uk> <8gia7hhuamnp3vhs8sj1j3803kv35or8ms@4ax.com> <do2i8bu+CndiFAaH@perry.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net m+0rFxjXsDaSWnU9Ci3zXg7YIIiicCZuno2jCt9jYPbB8DAtBV
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tYXX5LeCdT168Y75TNkD0SKW8WE=
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 220508-8, 8/5/2022), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
 by: Charles Ellson - Sun, 8 May 2022 22:32 UTC

On Sat, 7 May 2022 14:14:38 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <8gia7hhuamnp3vhs8sj1j3803kv35or8ms@4ax.com>, at 17:19:52 on
>Fri, 6 May 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>On Fri, 6 May 2022 14:54:37 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <t53828$9ne$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:32:56 on Fri, 6 May 2022,
>>>Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>On 06/05/2022 13:31, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <t4tbiq$6up$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:56:10 on Wed, 4 May
>>>>>2022, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <t4p2sl$o81$1@dont-email.me>, at 19:03:16 on Mon, 2 May 2022,
>>>>>>> Rink <rink.hof.haalditmaarweg@planet.nl> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Op 1-5-2022 om 17:35 schreef Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 18:03:08 +0100
>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <t4jmqh$rse$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 16:06:41 on Sat, 30 Apr
>>>>>>>>>> 2022, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com remarked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And as I said, not forever. All they do (for various definitions of
>>>>>>>>>>> "all") is  an FFT on the incoming data and only write out the level
>>>>>>>>>>> of the frequencies  that the algorithm thinks the ear can hear.
>>>>>>>>>>> Different algos will have  different ideas of what that'll be but
>>>>>>>>>>> ultimately you'll be left with the  common denominator frequencies
>>>>>>>>>>> that they all agree are needed and after that  it won't get any
>>>>>>>>>>>worse.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The actual problem of course, isn't voice that's slightly
>>>>>>>>>>Darlek, but dropouts where there's either silence, or so little
>>>>>>>>>>bandwidth available one only receives every third word.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Particularly annoying on radio station interviews where they seem to
>>>>>>>>> insist  on the guest using zoom or similar, then halfway through the
>>>>>>>>> interview the  line dies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ahem! The cloud dies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ahem!  All sorts of things might die.  The effect is that the
>>>>>>virtual line between the participants dies.
>>>
>>>>> There was one yesterday on R4 just before 8am. The interviewee was
>>>>>very difficult to understand because roughly every fifth syllable was
>>>>>lost. After struggling for a while, the radio station called them
>>>>>back on a landline (something I've never heard them actually describe
>>>>>quite as explicitly in the past).
>>>
>>>>> The average quality was then perhaps slightly worse, but didn't have
>>>>>the dropouts, so a success. I can't support the idea that the
>>>>>intermittent connection was due to anything other than a dodgy (<-
>>>>>their word) cloud (their word was of course 'line').
>>>>
>>>>In what sense is the "cloud" not a line? It still consists of
>>>>physically connected components despite the marketing name.
>>>
>>>"Line" implies a static point to point connection, and they way it's
>>>used by radio presenters reinforces that. "We've lost the line", "its a
>>>dodgy line", "we will try to get the line back" are all harking back to
>>>technology of the last century.
>>>
>>You haven't had a static point to point connection for certain since
>>the first time the PSTN was used to provide a link back to a studio.
>><snip>
>
>I wasn't aware that PSTN connections could change the copper they were
>using, mid-call.
>
Copper?

Pages:12345678910111213141516171819202122
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor