Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
> > David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> The mobile phone solution tends to assume someone from the mobile phone
> >> generation, in fair health, and not trapped by an emergency.
> >
> > ... and living somwhere that there is reliable mobile coverage.
> >
>
> That’s solvable by either a) improving coverage, which is happening, or b)
> providing backup power solutions to those who genuinely can’t leave the
> house to find signal and don’t have coverage. It’s not a justification for
> retaining the wired copper network nationwide.
>
It's possible yes, but is anyone actually going to do these things?

--
Chris Green
·

In article <5a174b6279noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <5a16c39196bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <5a1638a417noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
> > <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:

> > > So you're happy with the price rises for energy and see no
> > > reason to do a thing about it? It's just "The Market", a God
> > > that cannot be challenged?

> > How on earth have you got from what I wrote, "I don't know of any
> > mechanism ..." to the claim that I support price rises, or that
> > it's just the market.

> OK, change what I wrote into "Try examining what Norway has done.
> It is very different to what the UK Gov obsession iwith
> private-is-best. And means they are much better placed now than we
> are."

> > I don't support the price rises, they've been caused by naive
> > stupidity. Relying on the devil's gas whilst refusing to address
> > energy security and make sure we had storage and production of
> > our own gas and electricity. Down entirely to the government but
> > I'm certain no other party would have done better.

> You are probably right if you mean the main parties because they
> now all sup from the same belief system. Certainly, recent (sic)
> Labour Govs have continued to do like the Tories but put lipstick
> on the pig of 'privatisation', 'outsoucing', etc.

> > The government was largely frightened to address energy because
> > of you're lot, the CO2 zealots.

> Delusional Bollocks. :-) Their main reason is their delusional
> belief system and the money they get paid by their real paymasters.

Overwhelmingly the biggest factor in having delusional beliefs is
Propaganda.

I know I'm wasting my time but I'll tell you once more, people in the
west are subject to constant propaganda. This goes on day and night,
in the so called "news" progs and in dramas and chat shows and even
in the adverts. It's unrelenting. Your not told information you're
told what your opinion should be and the privileged professional
middle class just can't see it. They soak it up like a sponge.

They are the ones responsible for all the current nonsense ideologies
we now have to endure.

I'm constantly amazed by people saying how bad the propaganda is in
Russia why can't the people there see the truth and yet it's the same
here.

The answer is also the same here as in Russia, unless you look to
other sources of information besides main stream media how are you
going to know? So much going on that the media will not touch, it
doesn't sit with their agenda, so doesn't get reported.

Propaganda has enabled utter nonsense to become fact.

Take vaccination, The narrative on that was that if you chose not to
have it you were a danger to others and you should have your life
taken off you, no job, no shopping, no restaurants. I recall people
on this group thinking taking away people's lives was good because
propaganda told them it was.

I hope you now know that vaccines do not prevent the spread the
virus. So it was nasty propaganda that wasn't true.

Propaganda told us that vaccinating young children was important. But
children aren't at risk from covid and the vaccine will not stop the
spread, so that again nonsense becomes fact. So great idea, pump an
experimental vaccine into young children that don't need it and that
are still developing with no clue what the long term effects will be.

Propaganda.

Mask stop the spread - No. Even N95 masks mandated in Germany had no
effect on their infection rate. Propaganda.

Asymptomatic transmission. It may have happened rarely but it was not
a significant factor at all.

The reason for masks and asymptomatic transmission was to generate
fear, fear through propaganda. That makes people controllable. The so
called government nudge unit is a propaganda weapon used against our
country.

Even the big one lockdowns. It turns out the WHO now think Sweden did
rather well after all, and didn't destroy their economy.

In our country lefties had (esp. BBC) an apoplexy every day, lock
down harder, sooner, longer. "Why aren't we locking down Prime
Minister" Never asking for an assessment of the consequences and
balance of risks oh no. Now they moan because the health service is
stuffed and we're bankrupt as a country - what did you expect? It's
the Conservative's fault now, nothing to do with them.

Now we start the consequences of that propaganda.

A key sign that something is propaganda - no debate allowed. If it's
true there's no fear of debate, if it's false then conversation must
be shut down.

Where debate is being crushed it's almost certainly propaganda and
nonsense. If the BBC will not debate it, it's propaganda.

There is no climate crisis. Polar bears are fine, Great Barrier Reef
is fine etc.

We're in a warm period, it's happened before and will again. Nothing
we can do will make any difference but the King Cnuts of this world
and religious middle class types are happy to destroy other people's
lives trying.

The nudge unit will start again soon on climate change, people have
no idea how far the WEF are going to take us down. The great reset is
destruction, end of lives as we know them, not what CO2 isn't doing.

Bob.

Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:
>>> David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The mobile phone solution tends to assume someone from the mobile phone
>>>> generation, in fair health, and not trapped by an emergency.
>>>
>>> ... and living somwhere that there is reliable mobile coverage.
>>>
>>
>> That’s solvable by either a) improving coverage, which is happening, or b)
>> providing backup power solutions to those who genuinely can’t leave the
>> house to find signal and don’t have coverage. It’s not a justification for
>> retaining the wired copper network nationwide.
>>
> It's possible yes, but is anyone actually going to do these things?
>

For b) it’s not unreasonable to expect the householder to provide, or to
pay someone to solve the problem. The very vulnerable can go on a priority
register to be helped. My mother’s electricity supply was so registered in
the latter years of her life. To expect Open Reach to maintain what is
effectively going to be a low voltage backup power supply for everyone is
unreasonable. I suspect you will already find that a huge number of the
alleged elderly/infirm/vulnerable are already without a corded phone having
purchased a cordless phone and have disposed of the corded one, and are
already up the creek without the proverbial paddle.

On 14/08/2022 12:29, Tweed wrote:
> It’s a solved problem with domestic burglar alarms with sealed
> lead acid batteries.

Which are regularly inspected and batteries regularly replaced.

On 14/08/2022 12:32, Tweed wrote:
> Corded style desk telephones that connect via GSM are a thing. A mobile
> phone doesn’t have to look like a mobile phone.

Not that it does not look like a mobile phone.

It will probbaly be mains powered (with battery backup) normally be in a
fixed location.

David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
> On 14/08/2022 12:29, Tweed wrote:
>> Then stuff it full of primary D cells. Have a change battery indicator that
>
> Or you could stuff properly maintained batteries, in a central building,
> and provide the power for the phone over the same cable as used for the
> speech, with automatic testing in the early hours of the morning. Proven
> technology.
>
Proven technology that nobody will be willing to continue paying for.
Anyway, you’ve got orders of magnitude more risk of dying because an
ambulance can’t be found or you are stuck queuing for admission to
hospital, than the risk of being unable to dial 999 in the event of a very
rare power failure.

The milkman was famed for finding collapsed elderly customers on their
rounds. But that’s not been a justification for mandating their retention.
Times change.

MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 14/08/2022 12:29, Tweed wrote:
>> It’s a solved problem with domestic burglar alarms with sealed
>> lead acid batteries.
>
> Which are regularly inspected and batteries regularly replaced.
>
>

Which can be done under a service contract for those that feel it is
important or for those that it is deemed to be important. It’s far cheaper
than maintaining miles of copper pair and the exchange buildings.

On 14/08/2022 13:22, MB wrote:
>> It’s a solved problem with domestic burglar alarms with sealed
>> lead acid batteries.
>
> Which are regularly inspected and batteries regularly replaced.

It wouldn't surprise me if the real business model is the steady
maintenance income stream, rather than the initial installation payment.

On 14/08/2022 12:39, Tweed wrote:
> You aren’t going to keep the wired copper network running based on a few
> edge cases,

That's one of the big problems with unregulated privatisation. Left to
their own devices private sector companies will apply the 80:20 rule and
completely ignore the weakest 20%. There will be a secondary market, to
guilty younger relatives, of expensive technological solutions.

Governments, at least in Western democracies, have a responsibility for
all of the population.

David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
> On 14/08/2022 12:39, Tweed wrote:
>> You aren’t going to keep the wired copper network running based on a few
>> edge cases,
>
> That's one of the big problems with unregulated privatisation. Left to
> their own devices private sector companies will apply the 80:20 rule and
> completely ignore the weakest 20%. There will be a secondary market, to
> guilty younger relatives, of expensive technological solutions.
>
> Governments, at least in Western democracies, have a responsibility for
> all of the population.
>
>

Yes, but there’s better things to spend limited resources on than a low
voltage backup distribution network. I’d like to see figures for how many
lives might be lost vs the cost. Remember this calculation is carried out
all the time, for road improvements etc etc.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 09:05:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>BrightsideS9 <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 12:58:14 +0100, Roderick Stewart
>> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 11:44:31 +0100, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>> I think you are refusing to accept that many simply don't want a
>>>> landline. As I said elsewhere I don't know of any one under 30 with a
>>>> phone in their landline socket.
>>>
>>> I'm quite happy to accept that not everyone wants a landline. I've
>>> never disputed this. Nobody is forced to have a landline if they don't
>>> want it.
>>>
>>> But if somebody *already* has a landline, they may not want to give it
>>> up as part of the upgrade to fibre. It's possible to keep your
>>> landline number and use it over the fibre service (I've done it) but
>>> it's slightly more complicated than an oldfashioned passive phone
>>> plugged into a copper cable, and this may put some people off from
>>> considering the upgrade until it's forced upon them.
>>>
>>> Keeping a mobile for emergency calls is a sensible solution if it's
>>> available, but not everyone has the option.
>>>
>>
>> That is a solution if the stalwart land line user is offered a mobile
>> totally paid for by the landline provider.
>>
>
>Why can’t the landline provider simply tell you to get stuffed and go and
>sort your own voice solution at your own cost? A mobile with unlimited free
>minutes is cheaper than a landline rental. Without an exhaustive search,
>Tesco will give you unlimited voice minutes for £7.50/month. If you are
>paying (either directly or as part of the broadband sub) for a landline to
>get your broadband you already have an almost no ongoing cost solution,
>other than very small call charges, from the likes of Sipgate.
>

You are proposing a Tesco mobile at £7.50 a month ontop of purchase
price, just to use as an emergency, for a stalwart land line user eh?
paying
--
brightside s9

On 14/08/2022 10:05, Tweed wrote:
> BrightsideS9 <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 12:58:14 +0100, Roderick Stewart
>> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 11:44:31 +0100, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>> I think you are refusing to accept that many simply don't want a
>>>> landline. As I said elsewhere I don't know of any one under 30 with a
>>>> phone in their landline socket.
>>>
>>> I'm quite happy to accept that not everyone wants a landline. I've
>>> never disputed this. Nobody is forced to have a landline if they don't
>>> want it.
>>>
>>> But if somebody *already* has a landline, they may not want to give it
>>> up as part of the upgrade to fibre. It's possible to keep your
>>> landline number and use it over the fibre service (I've done it) but
>>> it's slightly more complicated than an oldfashioned passive phone
>>> plugged into a copper cable, and this may put some people off from
>>> considering the upgrade until it's forced upon them.
>>>
>>> Keeping a mobile for emergency calls is a sensible solution if it's
>>> available, but not everyone has the option.
>>>
>>
>> That is a solution if the stalwart land line user is offered a mobile
>> totally paid for by the landline provider.

> Why can’t the landline provider simply tell you to get stuffed and go and
> sort your own voice solution at your own cost? A mobile with unlimited free
> minutes is cheaper than a landline rental. Without an exhaustive search,
> Tesco will give you unlimited voice minutes for £7.50/month. If you are
> paying (either directly or as part of the broadband sub) for a landline to
> get your broadband you already have an almost no ongoing cost solution,
> other than very small call charges, from the likes of Sipgate.

Get a PAYG SIM from giffgaff. You just have to use it every few months
to keep it active.

--
Max Demian

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 13:24:16 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 14/08/2022 12:32, Tweed wrote:
>> Corded style desk telephones that connect via GSM are a thing. A mobile
>> phone doesn’t have to look like a mobile phone.
>
>Not that it does not look like a mobile phone.
>
>It will probbaly be mains powered (with battery backup) normally be in a
>fixed location.
>

I've got one. Looks like a desktop phone. It can be carried around but
the battery only lasts 24 hours on standby, even less if phone used.
The phone is designed to permenently mains connected.

--
brightside s9

On 14/08/2022 15:38, Max Demian wrote:
> Get a PAYG SIM from giffgaff. You just have to use it every few months
> to keep it active.

I think you mean that your {son|daughter}[in-law] will get you one, drag
it out of the drawer and charge it whenever they come and visit, and,
every few months use it.

BrightsideS9 <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 09:05:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> BrightsideS9 <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 12:58:14 +0100, Roderick Stewart
>>> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 11:44:31 +0100, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>> I think you are refusing to accept that many simply don't want a
>>>>> landline. As I said elsewhere I don't know of any one under 30 with a
>>>>> phone in their landline socket.
>>>>
>>>> I'm quite happy to accept that not everyone wants a landline. I've
>>>> never disputed this. Nobody is forced to have a landline if they don't
>>>> want it.
>>>>
>>>> But if somebody *already* has a landline, they may not want to give it
>>>> up as part of the upgrade to fibre. It's possible to keep your
>>>> landline number and use it over the fibre service (I've done it) but
>>>> it's slightly more complicated than an oldfashioned passive phone
>>>> plugged into a copper cable, and this may put some people off from
>>>> considering the upgrade until it's forced upon them.
>>>>
>>>> Keeping a mobile for emergency calls is a sensible solution if it's
>>>> available, but not everyone has the option.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is a solution if the stalwart land line user is offered a mobile
>>> totally paid for by the landline provider.
>>>
>>
>> Why can’t the landline provider simply tell you to get stuffed and go and
>> sort your own voice solution at your own cost? A mobile with unlimited free
>> minutes is cheaper than a landline rental. Without an exhaustive search,
>> Tesco will give you unlimited voice minutes for £7.50/month. If you are
>> paying (either directly or as part of the broadband sub) for a landline to
>> get your broadband you already have an almost no ongoing cost solution,
>> other than very small call charges, from the likes of Sipgate.
>>
>
> You are proposing a Tesco mobile at £7.50 a month ontop of purchase
> price, just to use as an emergency, for a stalwart land line user eh?
> paying

No on top at all. If you have a voice only landline the mobile cost is
cheaper than the landline. If you have a landline that provides Internet
you can either use whatever solution your ISP may or may not provide, at
whatever incremental cost they charge (the going rate seems to be around £7
from BT or Zen) or you can use Sipgate or similar for almost nothing. Like
ISP provided email, am ISP provided voice service will be used to make it
harder to jump ship. The sensible will port their landline number to an
independent provider. The vast bulk of users will give up on a landline
number and just use mobiles. This is largely the case for anyone under
around 30.

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:26:17 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 13/08/2022 12:36, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>> So if you don't, make a fuss. They are apparently obliged to then provide a
>> local power backup for when there is a power cut. Personally, I think that
>> should be the case in all homes as a matter of safety. Just has it has been
>> in the past.
>
>Didn't it used to be a requirement of business premises that they had at
>least one phone that worked when mains supply lost.

Yes. Also there had to be one land line phone per floor in office
building I worked in when the old manual operator exchange was
replaced by an all singing super duper electronic exchange. Just in
of case power failure.

--
brightside S9

On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 14:52:45 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>BrightsideS9 <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 09:05:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> BrightsideS9 <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 12:58:14 +0100, Roderick Stewart
>>>> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 11:44:31 +0100, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> I think you are refusing to accept that many simply don't want a
>>>>>> landline. As I said elsewhere I don't know of any one under 30 with a
>>>>>> phone in their landline socket.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm quite happy to accept that not everyone wants a landline. I've
>>>>> never disputed this. Nobody is forced to have a landline if they don't
>>>>> want it.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if somebody *already* has a landline, they may not want to give it
>>>>> up as part of the upgrade to fibre. It's possible to keep your
>>>>> landline number and use it over the fibre service (I've done it) but
>>>>> it's slightly more complicated than an oldfashioned passive phone
>>>>> plugged into a copper cable, and this may put some people off from
>>>>> considering the upgrade until it's forced upon them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Keeping a mobile for emergency calls is a sensible solution if it's
>>>>> available, but not everyone has the option.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is a solution if the stalwart land line user is offered a mobile
>>>> totally paid for by the landline provider.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why can?t the landline provider simply tell you to get stuffed and go and
>>> sort your own voice solution at your own cost? A mobile with unlimited free
>>> minutes is cheaper than a landline rental. Without an exhaustive search,
>>> Tesco will give you unlimited voice minutes for £7.50/month. If you are
>>> paying (either directly or as part of the broadband sub) for a landline to
>>> get your broadband you already have an almost no ongoing cost solution,
>>> other than very small call charges, from the likes of Sipgate.
>>>
>>
>> You are proposing a Tesco mobile at £7.50 a month ontop of purchase
>> price, just to use as an emergency, for a stalwart land line user eh?
>> paying
>
>No on top at all. If you have a voice only landline the mobile cost is
>cheaper than the landline. If you have a landline that provides Internet
>you can either use whatever solution your ISP may or may not provide, at
>whatever incremental cost they charge (the going rate seems to be around £7
>from BT or Zen) or you can use Sipgate or similar for almost nothing. Like
>ISP provided email, am ISP provided voice service will be used to make it
>harder to jump ship. The sensible will port their landline number to an
>independent provider. The vast bulk of users will give up on a landline
>number and just use mobiles. This is largely the case for anyone under
>around 30.

What part of 'stalwart landline user' do you not understand.

--
brightside S9

David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
> On 14/08/2022 15:38, Max Demian wrote:
>> Get a PAYG SIM from giffgaff. You just have to use it every few months
>> to keep it active.
>
> I think you mean that your {son|daughter}[in-law] will get you one, drag
> it out of the drawer and charge it whenever they come and visit, and,
> every few months use it.
>

It’s the main reason I proposed a contract sim.
I’ve just looked up the cost of a voice only landline with BT. Shockingly
£23.05/month for new customers with no inclusive minutes. So £7.50/month
with Tesco mobile with unlimited minutes is a bargain. Looks to me that BT
is actively trying to make the business go away.

BrightsideS9 <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:26:17 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 13/08/2022 12:36, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>>> So if you don't, make a fuss. They are apparently obliged to then provide a
>>> local power backup for when there is a power cut. Personally, I think that
>>> should be the case in all homes as a matter of safety. Just has it has been
>>> in the past.
>>
>> Didn't it used to be a requirement of business premises that they had at
>> least one phone that worked when mains supply lost.
>
> Yes. Also there had to be one land line phone per floor in office
> building I worked in when the old manual operator exchange was
> replaced by an all singing super duper electronic exchange. Just in
> of case power failure.
>

Not no more. At work every desk phone is IP based and dies with the power.
The expectation is that almost everyone has a mobile. In fact the use of
the desk phones has collapsed with the use of Teams etc.

BrightsideS9 <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 14:52:45 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> BrightsideS9 <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 09:05:57 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> BrightsideS9 <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 12:58:14 +0100, Roderick Stewart
>>>>> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 11:44:31 +0100, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> I think you are refusing to accept that many simply don't want a
>>>>>>> landline. As I said elsewhere I don't know of any one under 30 with a
>>>>>>> phone in their landline socket.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm quite happy to accept that not everyone wants a landline. I've
>>>>>> never disputed this. Nobody is forced to have a landline if they don't
>>>>>> want it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But if somebody *already* has a landline, they may not want to give it
>>>>>> up as part of the upgrade to fibre. It's possible to keep your
>>>>>> landline number and use it over the fibre service (I've done it) but
>>>>>> it's slightly more complicated than an oldfashioned passive phone
>>>>>> plugged into a copper cable, and this may put some people off from
>>>>>> considering the upgrade until it's forced upon them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Keeping a mobile for emergency calls is a sensible solution if it's
>>>>>> available, but not everyone has the option.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is a solution if the stalwart land line user is offered a mobile
>>>>> totally paid for by the landline provider.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why can?t the landline provider simply tell you to get stuffed and go and
>>>> sort your own voice solution at your own cost? A mobile with unlimited free
>>>> minutes is cheaper than a landline rental. Without an exhaustive search,
>>>> Tesco will give you unlimited voice minutes for £7.50/month. If you are
>>>> paying (either directly or as part of the broadband sub) for a landline to
>>>> get your broadband you already have an almost no ongoing cost solution,
>>>> other than very small call charges, from the likes of Sipgate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are proposing a Tesco mobile at £7.50 a month ontop of purchase
>>> price, just to use as an emergency, for a stalwart land line user eh?
>>> paying
>>
>> No on top at all. If you have a voice only landline the mobile cost is
>> cheaper than the landline. If you have a landline that provides Internet
>> you can either use whatever solution your ISP may or may not provide, at
>> whatever incremental cost they charge (the going rate seems to be around £7
>> from BT or Zen) or you can use Sipgate or similar for almost nothing. Like
>> ISP provided email, am ISP provided voice service will be used to make it
>> harder to jump ship. The sensible will port their landline number to an
>> independent provider. The vast bulk of users will give up on a landline
>> number and just use mobiles. This is largely the case for anyone under
>> around 30.
>
>
> What part of 'stalwart landline user' do you not understand.
>

The stalwart landline user, ie copper based voice circuit back to the
exchange, is going to eventually have to change. Just like the stalwart
telegram user and stalwart telex user. I’m just pointing out the options.

On 14/08/2022 15:58, Tweed wrote:
> I’ve just looked up the cost of a voice only landline with BT. Shockingly
> £23.05/month for new customers with no inclusive minutes.

That's the price including the ability to use it for broadband. The
discount for voice only was confusing in the price list, but I think was
not a lot. The ability to use broadband is not the same as actually
having a broadband service.

> Looks to me that BT
> is actively trying to make the business go away.

I think I saw that, from some time next year, this option will be
priceless, i.e. they won't sell it.

On 14/08/2022 16:50, David Woolley wrote:
>
>> Looks to me that BT
>> is actively trying to make the business go away.
>
> I think I saw that, from some time next year, this option will be
> priceless, i.e. they won't sell it.

According to
<https://www.openreach.com/upgrading-the-UK-to-digital-phone-lines/industry>
the stop sell date for all analogue lines is September next year, and
this includes things like line take overs, not just first time connections.

However it also says that many places are already in a stop sell state.
There is some confusion. One item says September 23, and another says
Mary (sic) 23, and points to a PDF, dated April this year, which lists
dates up to May. I'm wondering if September became the new date after
the initial outcry.

One near me is shown as stop sell in Jun 21, although I don't think that
is mine.

I think that someone said there was nothing from Openreach; this is
something from them.

There is very little from the government, although the above was found
through
<https://www.local.gov.uk/our-support/sector-support-offer/supporting-financial-resilience-and-economic-recovery/digital/switchover/resources>.
The government seems more concerned about telecare and their business
uses of the PSTN (e.g. motorway phones), than about people without the
ability to adapt.

I haven't found anything about national security.

In article <5a174c6fc6noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <td7jcf$2pat3$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

> > I find it hard to believe that BT will be allowed to remove voice
> > services without providing a replacement. It might pass over fibre but
> > will have to be able to feed a telephone.

> > The big problem for most people is having provide it with a mains
> > supply.

> The concern I have is that the can make the change and then have a system
> that does not work at all if you have a power cut.

> They have an existing obligation to power the system so someone can make
> an emergency call even when the home's electricity supply is off.
> However they seem to be assuming everyone now has a 'mobile'... which not
> everyone does - or indeed may be able to afford.

or even, can recieve a signal

> So if you don't, make a fuss. They are apparently obliged to then provide
> a local power backup for when there is a power cut. Personally, I think
> that should be the case in all homes as a matter of safety. Just has it
> has been in the past.

> Jim

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 14/08/2022 12:51, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <5a174b6279noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
>>
>> Delusional Bollocks. :-) Their main reason is their delusional
>> belief system and the money they get paid by their real paymasters.
>
> Overwhelmingly the biggest factor in having delusional beliefs is
> Propaganda.

And no-one swallows it more unthinkingly than you.

> I know I'm wasting my time but I'll tell you once more, people in the
> west are subject to constant propaganda. This goes on day and night,
> in the so called "news" progs and in dramas and chat shows and even
> in the adverts. It's unrelenting. Your not told information you're
> told what your opinion should be and the privileged professional
> middle class just can't see it. They soak it up like a sponge.

It's not Jim's, nor mine nor anyone else's here, problem that you are
unable to think rationally for yourself, it's yours and yours alone. Go
fix it for yourself.

> They are the ones responsible for all the current nonsense ideologies
> we now have to endure.

The most nonsense ideaologies are those put about by the right-wing of
the Tory Party, such as Yukkob Really-Smug trying to claim that ousting
Boris Johnson was a victory of Remainers, when in reality it was done by
Brexshitters.

> I'm constantly amazed by people saying how bad the propaganda is in
> Russia why can't the people there see the truth and yet it's the same
> here.

The difference between Russia and here is that we have, potentially,
unlimited sources of information, whereas in Russia, to all intents and
purposes, they have only what the government tells them.

> The answer is also the same here as in Russia, unless you look to
> other sources of information besides main stream media how are you
> going to know? So much going on that the media will not touch, it
> doesn't sit with their agenda, so doesn't get reported.

Most of what doesn't get covered by mainstream media is simply bollocks
put about by clueless idiots like you.

> Propaganda has enabled utter nonsense to become fact.
>
> Take vaccination, The narrative on that was that if you chose not to
> have it you were a danger to others and you should have your life
> taken off you, no job, no shopping, no restaurants. I recall people
> on this group thinking taking away people's lives was good because
> propaganda told them it was.

We thought it was good because people who don't get vaccinated were, and
still are, a potential danger to others - a danger of long covid,
severe covid, or death from covid - including those who couldn't be
vaccinated for medical reasons, or hadn't yet been vaccinated as the
system slowly went through the population. 921 people died from covid
last week.

> I hope you now know that vaccines do not prevent the spread the
> virus.

We knew it a very long time before you did, as was warned by the main
stream media you so despise, repeated by both Jim and myself not long
after it was first broadcast:

On 23/10/2020 10:27, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
> One caution here. As pointed out in one of the recent radio
> programmes: It may be that a specific vaccine helps prevent infection
> causing death or serious illness but *still* allows the infected
> person to become infectious... thus propagating the virus to others
> despite remaining well.

On 23/10/2020 11:20, Java Jive wrote:
>
> Yes, as I explained a few days ago:

On 19/10/2020 01:58, Java Jive wrote:
>
> Science in Action
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cszh0x
>
> "Why Covid -19 vaccines may not stop transmission
>
> While vaccines against Covid -19 are being developed at unprecedented
> speed, none of them have been tested to see if they can actually stop
> transmission of the virus. They are designed to stop those who are
> vaccinated from developing Covid -19 disease, but not becoming
> infected.
>
> This says Virologist Malik Peiris from Hong Kong University means
> while vaccinated people themselves may be protected they might also
> spread the virus."
>
> From memory ...
>
> It's possible for a vaccine to be good enough to prevent people
> developing sickness but not be good enough to stop them passing on the
> disease. One particular possibility is that where a disease is caught
> normally by respiratory infection but a vaccine against it is
> delivered via injection, it may not immunise the respiratory tract
> where infection normally starts, so it is then possible for a person
> immunised with the vaccine to develop sufficient infection in the
> respiratory tract to be able to infect others, while not actually
> suffering from the effects of the disease him/herself. The best
> methods of vaccination are usually considered to be where the
> vaccination method against a given disease mimics the disease's normal
> method of infection, so, for covid-19, that might be a nasal spray or
> similar.

> So it was nasty propaganda that wasn't true.

It was based upon the simple and undeniable truth, which is still true,
that if there was less severe disease around, there was less likelihood
of those who were vulnerable coming into contact with it, and less
chance for the virus to hang around in people's bodies long enough to
mutate into more harmful strains.

> Propaganda told us that vaccinating young children was important. But
> children aren't at risk from covid and the vaccine will not stop the
> spread, so that again nonsense becomes fact. So great idea, pump an
> experimental vaccine into young children that don't need it and that
> are still developing with no clue what the long term effects will be.

By the time children became eligible for vaccination, the vaccine could
no longer be described as 'experimental' because there were plenty of
statistics from its use in adults and teenagers to suggest that it would
be perfectly safe in children, as indeed it has been - children over
12 have been vaccinated extensively in this country, and only alarmist
denialist idiots like yourself have had any problems with that.

> Propaganda.

Everything you ever post here is indeed some sort of denialist propaganda.

> Mask stop the spread - No. Even N95 masks mandated in Germany had no
> effect on their infection rate. Propaganda.

FALSE! Another repetition of fake news that has already been debunked
here earns you another complaint to the abuse address of your news server.

> Asymptomatic transmission. It may have happened rarely but it was not
> a significant factor at all.

FALSE! Another repetition of fake news that has already been debunked
here etc, etc.

> The reason for masks and asymptomatic transmission was to generate
> fear, fear through propaganda. That makes people controllable. The so
> called government nudge unit is a propaganda weapon used against our
> country.

Paranoia left in so that everyone else can have a good laugh at it.

> Even the big one lockdowns. It turns out the WHO now think Sweden did
> rather well after all, and didn't destroy their economy.

FALSE! As proven to you countless times before.

> In our country lefties had (esp. BBC) an apoplexy every day, lock
> down harder, sooner, longer. "Why aren't we locking down Prime
> Minister" Never asking for an assessment of the consequences and
> balance of risks oh no. Now they moan because the health service is
> stuffed and we're bankrupt as a country - what did you expect? It's
> the Conservative's fault now, nothing to do with them.

Paranoia left in so that everyone else can have a good laugh at it.

> Now we start the consequences of that propaganda.
>
> A key sign that something is propaganda - no debate allowed. If it's
> true there's no fear of debate, if it's false then conversation must
> be shut down.

Oh! Would it were as simple as that! Serial liars like you would have
been strangled at birth, so no-one here would ever have had to endure
your constant attempts to 'cancel' Jim by paranoid bitching, whingeing,
and repetition of fake news from the cesspits of social media, and would
be freer to discuss things in a more rational manner!

> Where debate is being crushed it's almost certainly propaganda and
> nonsense. If the BBC will not debate it, it's propaganda.

It's not the BBC's, nor any non-government media outlet's, job to
broadcast propaganda, and in fact the BBC through their Fact-Check pages
do a pretty good job of debunking it.

> There is no climate crisis. Polar bears are fine, Great Barrier Reef
> is fine etc.
>
> We're in a warm period, it's happened before and will again. Nothing
> we can do will make any difference but the King Cnuts of this world
> and religious middle class types are happy to destroy other people's
> lives trying.
>
> The nudge unit will start again soon on climate change, people have
> no idea how far the WEF are going to take us down. The great reset is
> destruction, end of lives as we know them, not what CO2 isn't doing.

In article <tdago4$3497u$1@dont-email.me>,
David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
> On 14/08/2022 10:10, Tweed wrote:
> > wait 30 seconds

> That could be the difference between a silent 999 call and no call at all.

> > Educate user on use

> Have you ever tried to educate an elderly relative how to use a new TV,
> or, for that matter a mobile phone, if they aren't a technofile, or have
> you tried to educate someone of any age how to correctly use council
> reycling bins.

> In the former cases, they will probably write he procedure down on a
> slip of paper, not something you want to try to find whilst you are
> having a heart attack, or breathing in smoke.

They could even write the time down on that bit of paper

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle