Hi,
I have "broadband" through an Alcatel 5G router/modem/hotspot
(possibly this lovely little box:
https://www.alcatelmobile.com/product/mobile-broadband/mobile-wifi/linkzone-cat7/
which *says* it is supported by W-7) mobile thing. This works
wonderfully well on my MacBook Pro and the MiniMac that was gifted to
me a few weeks ago.

It does not work on my Win-7 Ultimate box.

The product support:
https://www.alcatelmobile.com/support/product-support/ does link to
these:
https://www.alcatelmobile.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/180829-WIFI70-MW70VK-UM-EN.pdf
and
https://www.alcatelmobile.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/180525-WIFI70-MW70VK-QG-EN-CJB1M20ALAAB-OK.pdf
but neither tell me how to coerce Win-7 into discovering the Alcatel.

I have a Ralink Wi-Fi adaptor if that helps. The software that
came with it has a "create hotspot" option but no way to find my
mobile thingy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wi-Fi_hotspot&action=edit&section=10
doesn't have Win-7 listed as compatible with mobile hotspots .

That linkie also introduces one to the Wiki rabbit-hole where "Mobil
Broadband", "Hotspot", "Tethering" and "Mediatek.com" are only some of
the highlights.

I've had a look around in "Devices" on my W-7 box and even though I
did attach the Alcatel box to the Win-7 box by USB and watched as
Win-7 said it was adding the device's setup information and installing
it, the Alcatel doesn't appear in the list. Not even if I click on
"view hidden".

The Alcatel does have a "phone number" I could use to link to to
"dial it up" from the Win-7 box but I've no idea how to get "Network
Settings" to do this.

My Win-7 box is from 2013 (or perhaps 2012?) but it handles "real"
landline-supported Wi-fi broadband with ease. I'm puzzled as to why it
doesn't "see" the Alcatel box.

Any help or helpful suggestions would be very, very much appreciated.

Thank you.

J.

On 3/16/2024 7:33 PM, John wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I have "broadband" through an Alcatel 5G router/modem/hotspot
> (possibly this lovely little box:
> https://www.alcatelmobile.com/product/mobile-broadband/mobile-wifi/linkzone-cat7/
> which *says* it is supported by W-7) mobile thing. This works
> wonderfully well on my MacBook Pro and the MiniMac that was gifted to
> me a few weeks ago.
>
> It does not work on my Win-7 Ultimate box.
>
> The product support:
> https://www.alcatelmobile.com/support/product-support/ does link to
> these:
> https://www.alcatelmobile.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/180829-WIFI70-MW70VK-UM-EN.pdf
> and
> https://www.alcatelmobile.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/180525-WIFI70-MW70VK-QG-EN-CJB1M20ALAAB-OK.pdf
> but neither tell me how to coerce Win-7 into discovering the Alcatel.
>
>
> I have a Ralink Wi-Fi adaptor if that helps. The software that
> came with it has a "create hotspot" option but no way to find my
> mobile thingy.
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wi-Fi_hotspot&action=edit&section=10
> doesn't have Win-7 listed as compatible with mobile hotspots .
>
> That linkie also introduces one to the Wiki rabbit-hole where "Mobil
> Broadband", "Hotspot", "Tethering" and "Mediatek.com" are only some of
> the highlights.
>
> I've had a look around in "Devices" on my W-7 box and even though I
> did attach the Alcatel box to the Win-7 box by USB and watched as
> Win-7 said it was adding the device's setup information and installing
> it, the Alcatel doesn't appear in the list. Not even if I click on
> "view hidden".
>
> The Alcatel does have a "phone number" I could use to link to to
> "dial it up" from the Win-7 box but I've no idea how to get "Network
> Settings" to do this.
>
> My Win-7 box is from 2013 (or perhaps 2012?) but it handles "real"
> landline-supported Wi-fi broadband with ease. I'm puzzled as to why it
> doesn't "see" the Alcatel box.
>
> Any help or helpful suggestions would be very, very much appreciated.
>
> Thank you.

This isn't the kind of device you were thinking it was.
It's not going to have a USB driver, or show up in USBTreeView,
because it claims the USB is only for charging the batter.
Devices like this can be taken to Starbucks and run for seven
hours off the internal battery. Both "sides" of the device are
wireless. Windows 7 has a Wireless interface for the right-hand-side
of the device, so you're right, Windows 7 is ready for Wifi. The PC
or laptop you connect with, should have a Wifi interface on it
(only my laptop has that permanently affixed, my desktops use adapters).

V V
| 4G LTE (overlaps 5G) (webserver) Wifi Home | Seven hour battery life
+------------------------ modem/router box ---------------+

V V
| 4G LTE (overlaps 5G) (webserver) Wifi Home | Seven hour battery life
+------------------------ modem/router box ---------------+
|
|
+---- MicroUSB battery charging cable (led indicator, charge state)

If device has been touched by an ISP or provider, it can have
some URLs loaded into the interface. One of the URLs allows
the device to connect, and to download firmware updates.
The device should not be interrupted while flashing itself.
Presumably it has a boot loader that allows recovery from
failed flashes, but the documentation does not admit to that.
Also, once the device has a SIM loaded and is connected and
authenticated with the telephone company, they may again be
able to reach into the device and administer it, including
changing the firmware loading URL.

Step.
1:. Use.the.Wi-Fi.manager.on.the.Wi-Fi.embedded.device.to.select.the.network.name.(SSID).
You.can.find.the.default.password.on.the.label.located.on.the.underside.of.the.battery.cover.

The PDF file is written like a ransom note. Classy.
Copy/pasting that sentence was an adventure.

So first you'll connect from Win7 to device, as if the box
was a Wifi router. The default Wifi key is also on the
bottom of the box.

V V
| 4G LTE (overlaps 5G) (webserver) Wifi Home | Seven hour battery life
+------------------------ modem/router box ---------------+
<=== Win7, use SSID and password-on-box-bottom

Once connected, use your browser to program the device.

http://192.168.1.1

On that page (the administrator login page), the default login password
is "admin". You can change the password of the web server login at some point.

The Wifi can operate on 2.4Ghz or on 5Ghz, the first may be more noisy
than the second, but the first has better wall penetration power. At some
point they will ask you what country you are in, and that affects
channel definition, center frequency of Wifi channel and so on.

Presumably it has DHCP and assigns some other address like 192.168.1.2
to the client device or devices. Secondary devices may be able to
connect, once the thing is programmed via your Admin session.

Don't ask me why it has a "battery door". Lithium cells are not
normally to be exposed to civilians. Maybe the SIM slot is hidden
under the battery cover ? Dunno.

While it has details for the 4G, and a phone number is required
for operation, I don't really understand why that would be
necessary if it has a SIM. But I'm not a cell user, so I don't
know that stuff.

Paul

On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:03:41 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
wrote:

Sir, thank you for such a detailed and thoughtful reply. I'll respond
to some points inline if that's okay?

Thank you.

>On 3/16/2024 7:33 PM, John wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> I have "broadband" through an Alcatel 5G router/modem/hotspot
>> (possibly this lovely little box:
>> https://www.alcatelmobile.com/product/mobile-broadband/mobile-wifi/linkzone-cat7/
>> which *says* it is supported by W-7) mobile thing. This works
>> wonderfully well on my MacBook Pro and the MiniMac that was gifted to
>> me a few weeks ago.
>>
>> It does not work on my Win-7 Ultimate box.
>>
>> The product support:
>> https://www.alcatelmobile.com/support/product-support/ does link to
>> these:
>> https://www.alcatelmobile.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/180829-WIFI70-MW70VK-UM-EN.pdf
>> and
>> https://www.alcatelmobile.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/180525-WIFI70-MW70VK-QG-EN-CJB1M20ALAAB-OK.pdf
>> but neither tell me how to coerce Win-7 into discovering the Alcatel.
>>
>>
>> I have a Ralink Wi-Fi adaptor if that helps. The software that
>> came with it has a "create hotspot" option but no way to find my
>> mobile thingy.
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wi-Fi_hotspot&action=edit&section=10
>> doesn't have Win-7 listed as compatible with mobile hotspots .
>>
>> That linkie also introduces one to the Wiki rabbit-hole where "Mobil
>> Broadband", "Hotspot", "Tethering" and "Mediatek.com" are only some of
>> the highlights.
>>
>> I've had a look around in "Devices" on my W-7 box and even though I
>> did attach the Alcatel box to the Win-7 box by USB and watched as
>> Win-7 said it was adding the device's setup information and installing
>> it, the Alcatel doesn't appear in the list. Not even if I click on
>> "view hidden".
>>
>> The Alcatel does have a "phone number" I could use to link to to
>> "dial it up" from the Win-7 box but I've no idea how to get "Network
>> Settings" to do this.
>>
>> My Win-7 box is from 2013 (or perhaps 2012?) but it handles "real"
>> landline-supported Wi-fi broadband with ease. I'm puzzled as to why it
>> doesn't "see" the Alcatel box.
>>
>> Any help or helpful suggestions would be very, very much appreciated.
>>
>> Thank you.
>
>This isn't the kind of device you were thinking it was.

No. Probably not.

It does seem to work more like a mobile telephone that only allows
tethering to its hotspot than any router or modem I'm familiar with.

As I have never used a "smart" phone with tethering to its hotspot
that is not something I'm familiar with.

>It's not going to have a USB driver,

Okay, but Win-7 did say that the Alcatel was being installed when I
charged it using the Win-7 box's USB port. What it installed I have no
idea.

>or show up in USBTreeView,
>because it claims the USB is only for charging the batter.

Well, it did that. Lights come on.
The problem with leaving it attached to the Win-7 box is that the USB
ports seem to switch off, power down, which means that the connection
to the universe dies and it takes *ages* to reconnect. So I attached
he Alcatel to a wall-socket using a charger-block. As I said
previously, this works for the Mac's but the Win-7 box doesn't see the
Alcatel.

>Devices like this can be taken to Starbucks and run for seven
>hours off the internal battery.

So it says. Never having been inside a "Starbucks", and only having
had the toy for a couple of days, I'd need to take that one on trust.

Tha battery is huge, though. Bigger than some digital camera battery
packs. What that means, if anything, is anyone's guess.

> Both "sides" of the device are
>wireless. Windows 7 has a Wireless interface for the right-hand-side
>of the device, so you're right, Windows 7 is ready for Wifi. The PC
>or laptop you connect with, should have a Wifi interface on it

I'm not using it as PC-to-PC but as a router for the broadband, 5g
link. That there are mother devices on its network is a coincidence.

The SIM is my tunnel into the cosmos from the Alcatel and it works
fine with the Mac's.

>(only my laptop has that permanently affixed, my desktops use adapters).
>
> V V
> | 4G LTE (overlaps 5G) (webserver) Wifi Home | Seven hour battery life
> +------------------------ modem/router box ---------------+
>
> V V
> | 4G LTE (overlaps 5G) (webserver) Wifi Home | Seven hour battery life
> +------------------------ modem/router box ---------------+
> |
> |
> +---- MicroUSB battery charging cable (led indicator, charge state)
>
>If device has been touched by an ISP or provider, it can have
>some URLs loaded into the interface. One of the URLs allows
>the device to connect, and to download firmware updates.

It has a "web-based device management" page but I thought that was
inside the chips in the box - firmware. On the Mac's this works
wonderfully.

>The device should not be interrupted while flashing itself.
>Presumably it has a boot loader that allows recovery from
>failed flashes, but the documentation does not admit to that.

Okay. Point taken. I've flashed PC ROM's and other thingys so I know
it's a do-or-die process at times. However, there's no indicator
telling me *when* the Alcatel is being remotely fingered so that
could, someday, become an issue.

So far, not.

>Also, once the device has a SIM loaded and is connected and
>authenticated with the telephone company, they may again be
>able to reach into the device and administer it, including
>changing the firmware loading URL.

Yeah. We "buy" the bloody things but Microsoft, Google and Apple
*own* them all. At least they think they do.

I do not like that arrogant, nasty, money-grubbing attitude but I'm
stuck with it as they are slightly larger and have more lawyers than
me.

>
>Step.
>1:. Use.the.Wi-Fi.manager.on.the.Wi-Fi.embedded.device.to.select.the.network.name.(SSID).
> You.can.find.the.default.password.on.the.label.located.on.the.underside.of.the.battery.cover.

Done on Macs. Works fine. It actually has two names, "*.2.4G" and
"*.5G" and I'm currently using the latter.

It webs-up, emails, BOINCs and GIMPSes with grace and joy but only on
the Mac's not on the Win-7 box. The latter doesn't see it.

>
>The PDF file is written like a ransom note. Classy.

A Taiwanese company. They probably have millions of tech guys and
marketing droids who speak, read and write excellent English but they
may not *think* in English when doing technical stuff.

It's an issue when you have a global economy with ten million
languages.

>Copy/pasting that sentence was an adventure.
>
>So first you'll connect from Win7 to device, as if the box
>was a Wifi router.

No.

No, I won't as that is the step I don't get to. The bloody box is not
discoverable by Win-7. Well, not *my* Win-7. I have a list of Wi-fi
routers to link to in the houses of neighbours but the Alcatel just
does not appear on it.

Sorry.

> The default Wifi key is also on the
>bottom of the box.

Yeah, I've sort of changed that to one I like a little better.

>
> V V
> | 4G LTE (overlaps 5G) (webserver) Wifi Home | Seven hour battery life
> +------------------------ modem/router box ---------------+
> <=== Win7, use SSID and password-on-box-bottom

I can't. Win-7 doesn't see the box. Not at all. Not even a littley
bit.

>
>Once connected, use your browser to program the device.

Yerp, that works fine on the Mac's (MBP and Mini) but not on the
2013, Win-7 Ultimate machine.

>
> http://192.168.1.1

Maybe I could use that were I connected to it but at present I can't.
>
>On that page (the administrator login page), the default login password
>is "admin". You can change the password of the web server login at some point.

Yerp, done that, thank you.

John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:03:41 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
> wrote:

[Lots deleted.]

> Done on Macs. Works fine. It actually has two names, "*.2.4G" and
> "*.5G" and I'm currently using the latter.

[...]

> No, I won't as that is the step I don't get to. The bloody box is not
> discoverable by Win-7. Well, not *my* Win-7. I have a list of Wi-fi
> routers to link to in the houses of neighbours but the Alcatel just
> does not appear on it.

[...]

> >The Wifi can operate on 2.4Ghz or on 5Ghz, the first may be more noisy
>
> Wait ... oh, fuck moment?
>
> Oh! Oh! Oh, *FUCK*!
>
> Thank you, Sir. That works. :)
>
> >than the second, but the first has better wall penetration power.
>
> Welll, yes. It penetrates the thickness of my WIn-7 box!
>
> *IT* *WORKS*!
>
> Thank you.

What changed? Hasn't the "*.2.4G" name always been visible to the
Win-7 box, but you just didn't notice it?

Probably the ('old') Wi-Fi of your Win-7 box is not 5GHz capable, so
you won't see the "*.5G" name, but the "*.2.4G" name should always have
been visible to your Win-7 box.

So most likely situation: Your Macs are somewhat newer and have 5GHz
(and 2.4GHz) adapters. Your Win-7 box is 'old' and only has a 2.4GHz
adapter.

[...]

In message <48cdvihh3fauhmhugk3b8olq8q8ac889sk@4ax.com> at Sun, 17 Mar
2024 09:44:16, John <Man@the.keyboard> writes
>On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:03:41 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>
> Sir, thank you for such a detailed and thoughtful reply. I'll respond
>to some points inline if that's okay?

I wish everybody would do that, all the time; IMO, makes it _much_
easier to follow what's going on. Sadly, it's a disappearing art - I
have at least one company (an energy supplier) who can't even _see_ text
in replies where I didn't put it at the top: I get an email saying
something like "your email didn't seem to contain anything - can we help
you?" - followed by a quote of the entire email, including the bits they
can't see.
[]
> The problem with leaving it attached to the Win-7 box is that the USB
>ports seem to switch off, power down, which means that the connection
>to the universe dies and it takes *ages* to reconnect. So I attached
>he Alcatel to a wall-socket using a charger-block. As I said
>previously, this works for the Mac's but the Win-7 box doesn't see the
>Alcatel.

There may be a setting - probably in the BIOS - that determines whether
the USB sockets turn off when the PC is in various levels of sleep. It
may also be the case that some of the ports do and some don't.
>
>>Devices like this can be taken to Starbucks and run for seven
>>hours off the internal battery.
>
> So it says. Never having been inside a "Starbucks", and only having
>had the toy for a couple of days, I'd need to take that one on trust.

Read McDonalds. (Though in most Macs here, [a] I don't know if they'd
take too kindly to your staying there for hours, [b] you'd overstay the
free car parking - often 90 minutes - and invoke a fee that's many tens
of pounds.)
[]
>> At some
>>point they will ask you what country you are in, and that affects
>>channel definition, center frequency of Wifi channel and so on.
>
> Nah. I think that's inside the SIM.
>
It might be. The wifi bit - what channels it can use, and so on - is
entirely separate from the bands it uses to connect to the mobile
(cellular) network, but I suppose there could be country-specific data
in the SIM that it can read to see what country it is in and thus what
channels it is allowed to use for its wifi. (Obviously the SIM _does_
contain country-specific information, as it needs to know what 5G or
whatever network to connect to, but the device's firmware may or may not
be intelligent enough to use that information when configuring its wifi.
If it _doesn't_ ask you what country you're in, then assume it _does_
use that information - or, that it only uses the wifi channels common to
all countries. [Assuming there are some such; I don't know.])
[]
> You are a genius. And very helpful. And nice.

Paul is a very very nice man. (UK TV commercial reference.)
Knowledgeable, but (a) able to explain things in a way the rest of us
can understand, and (b) very patient with us.
[]
>>Don't ask me why it has a "battery door".
>
> Digital cameras do. Well, mine does. Some mobile 'phones, too.
>
>> Lithium cells are not
>>normally to be exposed to civilians.
>
> They are in UKland. A lot. Maybe we're more trustworthy? :)

(-: [And, therefore, the cells are usually not soldered in.]
>
>>Maybe the SIM slot is hidden
>>under the battery cover ? Dunno.
>
> Good guess and entirely correct. This is also the case with many,
>many telephones in UKland.
>
AIUI, in USA, many telephones don't _have_ a SIM - they're locked to a
network in a much more thorough way than in UK/EU, in effect having the
SIM integrated into the 'phone. [Here, most even "locked" 'phones can be
"unlocked": I don't think I've seen a SIMless one.]
>>
>>While it has details for the 4G, and a phone number is required
>>for operation, I don't really understand why that would be
>>necessary if it has a SIM.
>
> I asked. It's corporate bullshit. They classify the 5G broadband
>contract as a mobile telephone one for tax purposes. As the buggers
>are bigger than me, as usual, I'm not arguing.

Basically, as far as the mobile/cellular network is concerned, it's
using the 4G/5G/whatever network, so it has a number - even if you don't
know what it is. It has to, so your access can be enabled and charged
for. The same applies to _anything_ that uses the networks, like AIUI
most new cars.
>
> They don't *charge* me for the mobile, they just charge me for the
>"ISP" bit. Or so they said. I'll eventually find out.

Well, you can't make calls with it, as it doesn't have a
microphone/speaker, but it's still using the network. It's rather like
what will happen with landlines when POTS is turned off. (I presume you
_can_ make calls with it using VoIP, through whatever - such as the
laptop - you're connecting to it. But you'll have to have a VoIP
contract with someone, who may or may not be the same people as are
providing 'the "ISP" bit'.)
>
>> But I'm not a cell user, so I don't
>>know that stuff.
>
> I sort of do, a bit. I needed mobiles when I was working. Today, no
>one ever phones me unless they want money.

(-:
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Easy reading is damned hard writing. -Nathaniel Hawthorne, writer (1804-1864)

On 17 Mar 2024 14:24:22 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:03:41 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
>> wrote:
>
>ÆLots deleted.Å
>
>> Done on Macs. Works fine. It actually has two names, "*.2.4G" and
>> "*.5G" and I'm currently using the latter.
>
>Æ...Å
>
>> No, I won't as that is the step I don't get to. The bloody box is not
>> discoverable by Win-7. Well, not *my* Win-7. I have a list of Wi-fi
>> routers to link to in the houses of neighbours but the Alcatel just
>> does not appear on it.
>
>Æ...Å
>
>> >The Wifi can operate on 2.4Ghz or on 5Ghz, the first may be more noisy
>>
>> Wait ... oh, fuck moment?
>>
>> Oh! Oh! Oh, *FUCK*!
>>
>> Thank you, Sir. That works. :)
>>
>> >than the second, but the first has better wall penetration power.
>>
>> Welll, yes. It penetrates the thickness of my WIn-7 box!
>>
>> *IT* *WORKS*!
>>
>> Thank you.
>
> What changed? Hasn't the "*.2.4G" name always been visible to the
>Win-7 box, but you just didn't notice it?

No. The two "networks" operate as though they were in separate boxes
miles apart and had never met.

When one is selected, the other is switched off and not discoverable.
Why this is so, I have no idea. It's probably something to do with
cost and profiteering. Everything is, today.

It was just my stubborn streak that had me pick the 5G one and stick
with it. As it works with non-Win boxen, I *assumed* that the Win-7
box was simply being Microsofty and that all I needed to do was to
call for help and one of you fine folk would tell me about a hidden
switch in the Win-7 system that would make it visible. I couldn't find
one online, not even in the manufacturer's sites but that didn't mean
one didn't exist.

Lots of things aren't documented.

It seems that I was possibly wrong and that the 5G isn't ever going
to be visible to my Wi-fi card.

That's life. Well, it is when you insist on using an obsolete machine
from 2012/2013 running an OS that is not supported.

>
> Probably the ('old') Wi-Fi of your Win-7 box is not 5GHz capable, so
>you won't see the "*.5G" name, but the "*.2.4G" name should always have
>been visible to your Win-7 box.

Yerp. Good thinking. I wish *I* had had such clarity. :)

>
> So most likely situation: Your Macs are somewhat newer and have 5GHz
>(and 2.4GHz) adapters. Your Win-7 box is 'old' and only has a 2.4GHz
>adapter.

Yerp.

Mac's are M1 and M2 boxen. Apple silicon. One I bought, one was a
very generous gift. They work fine on both "networks".

Thank you,

J.

>
>Æ...Å

On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:10:04 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <48cdvihh3fauhmhugk3b8olq8q8ac889sk@4ax.com> at Sun, 17 Mar
>2024 09:44:16, John <Man@the.keyboard> writes
>>On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:03:41 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sir, thank you for such a detailed and thoughtful reply. I'll respond
>>to some points inline if that's okay?
>
>I wish everybody would do that, all the time; IMO, makes it _much_
>easier to follow what's going on. Sadly, it's a disappearing art - I

Well, I *was* using Usenet way back in the previous Century, deep
into the last Millennium before this one, so I've acquired some bad
habits. :)

>have at least one company (an energy supplier) who can't even _see_ text
>in replies where I didn't put it at the top: I get an email saying
>something like "your email didn't seem to contain anything - can we help
>you?" - followed by a quote of the entire email, including the bits they
>can't see.

My idiot sister sometimes does this, too. It's a Thing. It's probably
due to Microsoft's old, old Outhouse mail programs opening a reply-to
email with the cursor at the top and no Training Officer ever telling
newbies that the cursor can be moved.

My sister also insists on quoting, *below* her reply, all previous
text in the conversation. She would include images, too but Google
seems to elide them for her sometimes.

>[]
>> The problem with leaving it attached to the Win-7 box is that the USB
>>ports seem to switch off, power down, which means that the connection
>>to the universe dies and it takes *ages* to reconnect. So I attached
>>he Alcatel to a wall-socket using a charger-block. As I said
>>previously, this works for the Mac's but the Win-7 box doesn't see the
>>Alcatel.
>
>There may be a setting - probably in the BIOS - that determines whether
>the USB sockets turn off when the PC is in various levels of sleep. It
>may also be the case that some of the ports do and some don't.

Yerp, good thinking, but far too much like work to get the box
running. Plugging her into the wall seemed more expedient.

>>
>>>Devices like this can be taken to Starbucks and run for seven
>>>hours off the internal battery.
>>
>> So it says. Never having been inside a "Starbucks", and only having
>>had the toy for a couple of days, I'd need to take that one on trust.
>
>Read McDonalds. (Though in most Macs here, [a] I don't know if they'd
>take too kindly to your staying there for hours, [b] you'd overstay the
>free car parking - often 90 minutes - and invoke a fee that's many tens
>of pounds.)

Well, "(a" wouldn't bother me as no-one seems to care if I occupy a
seat in their house for hours. I'm quiet, polite and I do order the
odd cup of sludge so I'm taken as furniture.

"(b)" wouldn't be an issue as I don't drive a motorised carriage. I
never have. Many of my relative do but more than a few don't. It's
just not a compulsion in UKland as it is in USAlia. We can *often*
walk to the shops on pedestrian pathways. UKland, England, was
designed for Roman soldiers marching about annoying the natives. It
has multi-millennia old roads that still work, though some of the
newer ones are far less pleasant, accessible and safe.

>[]
>>> At some
>>>point they will ask you what country you are in, and that affects
>>>channel definition, center frequency of Wifi channel and so on.
>>
>> Nah. I think that's inside the SIM.
>>
>It might be. The wifi bit - what channels it can use, and so on - is
>entirely separate from the bands it uses to connect to the mobile
>(cellular) network, but I suppose there could be country-specific data
>in the SIM that it can read to see what country it is in and thus what
>channels it is allowed to use for its wifi. (Obviously the SIM _does_
>contain country-specific information, as it needs to know what 5G or
>whatever network to connect to, but the device's firmware may or may not
>be intelligent enough to use that information when configuring its wifi.
>If it _doesn't_ ask you what country you're in, then assume it _does_
>use that information - or, that it only uses the wifi channels common to
>all countries. [Assuming there are some such; I don't know.])

It's always possible that the SIM is as dumb as a politician and it
gets its set-up stuff from the company's aerials. From what I think I
know, which could be wrong, every company has its own masts sending
out their own propaganda to their mobiles. As the box I have is
basically just a cut-down 'phone (it won't make voice calls without
being fiddled with) I'd assume the SIM is patted on its head and told
what it is by Big Daddy.

>[]
>> You are a genius. And very helpful. And nice.
>
>Paul is a very very nice man. (UK TV commercial reference.)
>Knowledgeable, but (a) able to explain things in a way the rest of us
>can understand, and (b) very patient with us.

Yeah.

>[]
>>>Don't ask me why it has a "battery door".
>>
>> Digital cameras do. Well, mine does. Some mobile 'phones, too.
>>
>>> Lithium cells are not
>>>normally to be exposed to civilians.
>>
>> They are in UKland. A lot. Maybe we're more trustworthy? :)
>
>(-: [And, therefore, the cells are usually not soldered in.]

Well, mine never have been.

Except in the Mac's. Apple seems to have a weird idea about "fixing"
stuff in that they don't want to allow it.

>>
>>>Maybe the SIM slot is hidden
>>>under the battery cover ? Dunno.
>>
>> Good guess and entirely correct. This is also the case with many,
>>many telephones in UKland.
>>
>AIUI, in USA, many telephones don't _have_ a SIM - they're locked to a
>network in a much more thorough way than in UK/EU, in effect having the
>SIM integrated into the 'phone. [Here, most even "locked" 'phones can be
>"unlocked": I don't think I've seen a SIMless one.]

Oh, we do have SIM-free phones. They tend to be "smart", loaded with
Google and too busy for my taste. They do have the advantage of being
able to take more than one electronic ghost of a SIM at once so you
can have more than one number on your box. That's good for
self-employer roofers and plumbers and such-like.

>>>
>>>While it has details for the 4G, and a phone number is required
>>>for operation, I don't really understand why that would be
>>>necessary if it has a SIM.
>>
>> I asked. It's corporate bullshit. They classify the 5G broadband
>>contract as a mobile telephone one for tax purposes. As the buggers
>>are bigger than me, as usual, I'm not arguing.
>
>Basically, as far as the mobile/cellular network is concerned, it's
>using the 4G/5G/whatever network, so it has a number - even if you don't
>know what it is. It has to, so your access can be enabled and charged
>for. The same applies to _anything_ that uses the networks, like AIUI
>most new cars.

That's funny. Cars running about with invisible mobile 'phones that
can't be used to call for help. I suppose it's inevitable, given the
technology we have, but I would have preferred an I.P. address. Still,
it works so I'm not whining.

>>
>> They don't *charge* me for the mobile, they just charge me for the
>>"ISP" bit. Or so they said. I'll eventually find out.
>
>Well, you can't make calls with it, as it doesn't have a
>microphone/speaker, but it's still using the network. It's rather like
>what will happen with landlines when POTS is turned off. (I presume you
>_can_ make calls with it using VoIP, through whatever - such as the
>laptop - you're connecting to it. But you'll have to have a VoIP
>contract with someone, who may or may not be the same people as are
>providing 'the "ISP" bit'.)

Yeah, I looked into that. The companies used to insist on having a
land-line to attach the broadband to. This used to mean you needed a
telephone *number*.

When I looked around a couple of days ago, they had separated the
two. A *line* is still needed, but you don't need telephone service
any longer.

>>
>>> But I'm not a cell user, so I don't
>>>know that stuff.
>>
>> I sort of do, a bit. I needed mobiles when I was working. Today, no
>>one ever phones me unless they want money.
>
>(-:

In message <mj7gvi96e26tdpellq5mdv0gvvflpfhtit@4ax.com> at Mon, 18 Mar
2024 11:09:53, John <Man@the.keyboard> writes
[]
>> What changed? Hasn't the "*.2.4G" name always been visible to the
>>Win-7 box, but you just didn't notice it?
>
> No. The two "networks" operate as though they were in separate boxes
>miles apart and had never met.
>
> When one is selected, the other is switched off and not discoverable.
>Why this is so, I have no idea. It's probably something to do with
>cost and profiteering. Everything is, today.

Seems very odd!
[]
> It seems that I was possibly wrong and that the 5G isn't ever going
>to be visible to my Wi-fi card.
>
> That's life. Well, it is when you insist on using an obsolete machine
>from 2012/2013 running an OS that is not supported.
[]
There are lots of free third-party utilities (one may even have come
with the wi-fi card in your PC, if you've still got the CD!) that will
list networks your card can see, along with what channels they're
currently using, signal strength, what encryption they're using*, and
other things (in a manner that's easier to read than the popup list you
get when you click on the tray icon). One of those - especially if it
lists 2.4GHz and 5GHz networks separately - should give you some hint as
to whether the card _has_ 5G or not.

* Some will appear to be totally unencrypted, and you can connect to
them - but all you'll see, whatever page you try to go to, is a login
page (I think generated by the router). They're part of a network/ISP -
I think it's BT, though there may be other providers who do the same -
which offer access anywhere they have a customer whose router is turned
on; if you're a customer of that ISP, _your_ router will be accessible
by other customers of the same ISP. (I think you John said you don't use
a landline, so you won't be a member of such an arrangement.) [Using the
term "router" here in the UK sense, meaning the only box most home users
have, which is a combined MoDem, switch, router, and wifi hub.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Whoever decided to limit tagline length to 68 characters can kiss my

On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:35:35 +0000, John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:10:04 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <48cdvihh3fauhmhugk3b8olq8q8ac889sk@4ax.com> at Sun, 17 Mar
>>2024 09:44:16, John <Man@the.keyboard> writes
>>>On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:03:41 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sir, thank you for such a detailed and thoughtful reply. I'll respond
>>>to some points inline if that's okay?
>>
>>I wish everybody would do that, all the time; IMO, makes it _much_
>>easier to follow what's going on. Sadly, it's a disappearing art - I
>
> Well, I *was* using Usenet way back in the previous Century, deep
>into the last Millennium before this one, so I've acquired some bad
>habits. :)

Never *ever* top-posting is one of them. I really dislike those who
do top-post.

Again, it's a legacy of Microsoft's Outlook email program.

>
>>have at least one company (an energy supplier) who can't even _see_ text
>>in replies where I didn't put it at the top: I get an email saying
>>something like "your email didn't seem to contain anything - can we help
>>you?" - followed by a quote of the entire email, including the bits they
>>can't see.
>
> My idiot sister sometimes does this, too. It's a Thing. It's probably
>due to Microsoft's old, old Outhouse mail programs opening a reply-to
>email with the cursor at the top and no Training Officer ever telling
>newbies that the cursor can be moved.

*I* worked that one out the very first time I used Outhouse but I'm
quite clever and I love to fiddle with obscure bits.

>
> My sister also insists on quoting, *below* her reply, all previous
>text in the conversation. She would include images, too but Google
>seems to elide them for her sometimes.

I did try to introduce her to Thnderbird email programs and to Usenet
as a first level helpdesk but she never managed to include those into
her skill-set.

>
>>[]
>>> The problem with leaving it attached to the Win-7 box is that the USB
>>>ports seem to switch off, power down, which means that the connection
>>>to the universe dies and it takes *ages* to reconnect. So I attached
>>>he Alcatel to a wall-socket using a charger-block. As I said
>>>previously, this works for the Mac's but the Win-7 box doesn't see the
>>>Alcatel.
>>
>>There may be a setting - probably in the BIOS - that determines whether
>>the USB sockets turn off when the PC is in various levels of sleep. It
>>may also be the case that some of the ports do and some don't.
>
> Yerp, good thinking, but far too much like work to get the box
>running. Plugging her into the wall seemed more expedient.
Managing the power inside a Win-7 box is actually easy, I've been
fiddling with those settings for decades, but it's not really worth
the effort when I have a spare hole in the wall.

What astonished me was that I *did* have a spare.
>
>>>
>>>>Devices like this can be taken to Starbucks and run for seven
>>>>hours off the internal battery.
>>>
>>> So it says. Never having been inside a "Starbucks", and only having
>>>had the toy for a couple of days, I'd need to take that one on trust.
>>
>>Read McDonalds.

I was in one of those many, many years ago. I asked for a bun with
*ABSOLUTELY* *NO* *MAYO* as mayo makes me projectile vomit, is a slow,
cumulative poison and tastes, to me, like sewer water smells.

The bun they delivered had mayo on it.

I decided that either they had a corporate mandate to supply mayo,
they didn't own mayo-free buns to cook or they employed people who
couldn't *listen*. Whatever it was, I never went back.

Being intolerant to mayo does make it impossible for me to buy
ready-made sandwiches from stores but that's Life.

Yes, salad cream, too.

I don't frequent other burger-joints, either. BK, Starbucks, Wendy's,
Subway and the others all show advertising placards with images of
buns dripping, oozing mayo. I don't trust them to be capable of
producing anything mayo-free. Not even iced water.

>>(Though in most Macs here, [a] I don't know if they'd
>>take too kindly to your staying there for hours, [b] you'd overstay the
>>free car parking - often 90 minutes - and invoke a fee that's many tens
>>of pounds.)
>
> Well, "(a" wouldn't bother me as no-one seems to care if I occupy a
>seat in their house for hours. I'm quiet, polite and I do order the
>odd cup of sludge so I'm taken as furniture.

There are, in England, tea-houses and cafés that offer stuff apart
from mayo-slathered buns and sandwiches though I do have to be careful
when ordering.

>
> "(b)" wouldn't be an issue as I don't drive a motorised carriage. I
>never have. Many of my relative do but more than a few don't. It's
>just not a compulsion in UKland as it is in USAlia. We can *often*
>walk to the shops on pedestrian pathways. UKland, England, was
>designed for Roman soldiers marching about annoying the natives. It
>has multi-millennia old roads that still work, though some of the
>newer ones are far less pleasant, accessible and safe.

And some of the older ones are pressed into service as multi-lane
highways in spite of them being two chariots wide and lined with
valuable crops. That does make them dangerous, especially in rainy,
icy, dark Winter nights.

Soome old, inter-village roads don't have footways.

England is small and cramped and not totally suitable for trucks,
caravans and double-decker buses. As mentioned above, many of our
roads are older than most European countries and just can never be
expanded to take modern traffic.

Though the City Planners do try. :)

J.

On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 12:07:44 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <mj7gvi96e26tdpellq5mdv0gvvflpfhtit@4ax.com> at Mon, 18 Mar
>2024 11:09:53, John <Man@the.keyboard> writes
>[]
>>> What changed? Hasn't the "*.2.4G" name always been visible to the
>>>Win-7 box, but you just didn't notice it?
>>
>> No. The two "networks" operate as though they were in separate boxes
>>miles apart and had never met.
>>
>> When one is selected, the other is switched off and not discoverable.
>>Why this is so, I have no idea. It's probably something to do with
>>cost and profiteering. Everything is, today.
>
>Seems very odd!

Maybe, but it's the way it works. I don't know whether the Alcatel
box even has the power to drive both "networks" nor whether flashing
the ROM to cause it to would also cause it to melt into a puddle of
goo and light my house on fire.

<shrug> I've found a way to make it work. I'm happier.

>[]
>> It seems that I was possibly wrong and that the 5G isn't ever going
>>to be visible to my Wi-fi card.
>>
>> That's life. Well, it is when you insist on using an obsolete machine
>>from 2012/2013 running an OS that is not supported.
>[]
>There are lots of free third-party utilities

Yeah, I've used them lots over the decades. I've no idea whether I
have any installed at present, apart from "ip_config" and her
relatives from Windows.

>(one may even have come
>with the wi-fi card in your PC, if you've still got the CD!)

From 2013? Hmm, maybe.

Oh. I have a Win-10-64 installation CD. And several for kit that came
with an old Win-3.11 machine. Also many others including one in Hebrew
that I never could get to run and have no idea whence it came. And a
Puppy Linux CD. I wonder whether that one still runs?

I suspect the wi-fi card didn't come with one. It's integral to the
PC so it probably never needed one.

> that will
>list networks your card can see, along with what channels they're
>currently using, signal strength, what encryption they're using*, and
>other things (in a manner that's easier to read than the popup list you
>get when you click on the tray icon). One of those - especially if it
>lists 2.4GHz and 5GHz networks separately - should give you some hint as
>to whether the card _has_ 5G or not.

Good thinking. I'll browse about. Thank you.

>
>* Some will appear to be totally unencrypted, and you can connect to
>them - but all you'll see, whatever page you try to go to, is a login
>page (I think generated by the router). They're part of a network/ISP -
>I think it's BT, though there may be other providers who do the same -
>which offer access anywhere they have a customer whose router is turned
>on; if you're a customer of that ISP, _your_ router will be accessible
>by other customers of the same ISP. (I think you John said you don't use
>a landline, so you won't be a member of such an arrangement.)

If you're talking about BT/FON, yes I have one of their routers. They
used to sell them for pennies and to allow us to access any FON router
in anyone's home so long as we shared a bit of our home bandwidth with
the world of FON customers.

I did that for years. It allowed me to FON-up when traveling.

>[Using the
>term "router" here in the UK sense, meaning the only box most home users
>have, which is a combined MoDem, switch, router, and wifi hub.]

Yeah.

Thank you,
J.

(Would have replied by email, as it's a general chat, but I sensed it's
probably not a real email!)

In message <j88gvihejmbt3i0pb5qvp6h891n7rhopfd@4ax.com> at Mon, 18 Mar
2024 11:35:35, John <Man@the.keyboard> writes
>On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:10:04 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <48cdvihh3fauhmhugk3b8olq8q8ac889sk@4ax.com> at Sun, 17 Mar
>>2024 09:44:16, John <Man@the.keyboard> writes
>>>On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:03:41 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sir, thank you for such a detailed and thoughtful reply. I'll respond
>>>to some points inline if that's okay?
>>
>>I wish everybody would do that, all the time; IMO, makes it _much_
>>easier to follow what's going on. Sadly, it's a disappearing art - I
>
> Well, I *was* using Usenet way back in the previous Century, deep
>into the last Millennium before this one, so I've acquired some bad
>habits. :)

No, _good_ habits!

[] (short for "[something snipped here]")

> My idiot sister sometimes does this, too. It's a Thing. It's probably
>due to Microsoft's old, old Outhouse mail programs opening a reply-to
>email with the cursor at the top and no Training Officer ever telling
>newbies that the cursor can be moved.

To be fair, starting with the cursor at the top is a _good_ thing, if
interposting and snipping is used; however, OE more or less came in when
the concept of a Training Officer for newbies was going out. (Entirely
bottom-posting is almost as bad, especially if no snipping is done - and
particularly irritating for those using Braille or speech interfaces.)
>
> My sister also insists on quoting, *below* her reply, all previous
>text in the conversation. She would include images, too but Google
>seems to elide them for her sometimes.

Snipping is joining interposting as a lost art.
[]
>>There may be a setting - probably in the BIOS - that determines whether
>>the USB sockets turn off when the PC is in various levels of sleep. It
>>may also be the case that some of the ports do and some don't.
>
> Yerp, good thinking, but far too much like work to get the box
>running. Plugging her into the wall seemed more expedient.
>
It's fairly obvious once you are looking for it: something like "leave
USB ports powered during sleep". It's there more or less specifically
for that reason - so people can use their PC as a 'phone charger. If
you've got the wall-warts though, probably better (other than taking up
another socket); sometimes they might output more power, too, than the
PC ports, especially on an older PC. (And they're not awkwardly round
the back, too.)
[]
>>> So it says. Never having been inside a "Starbucks", and only having
>>>had the toy for a couple of days, I'd need to take that one on trust.
>>
>>Read McDonalds. (Though in most Macs here, [a] I don't know if they'd
>>take too kindly to your staying there for hours, [b] you'd overstay the
>>free car parking - often 90 minutes - and invoke a fee that's many tens
>>of pounds.)
>
> Well, "(a" wouldn't bother me as no-one seems to care if I occupy a
>seat in their house for hours. I'm quiet, polite and I do order the
>odd cup of sludge so I'm taken as furniture.
>
> "(b)" wouldn't be an issue as I don't drive a motorised carriage. I
>never have. Many of my relative do but more than a few don't. It's
>just not a compulsion in UKland as it is in USAlia. We can *often*
>walk to the shops on pedestrian pathways. UKland, England, was
>designed for Roman soldiers marching about annoying the natives. It
>has multi-millennia old roads that still work, though some of the
>newer ones are far less pleasant, accessible and safe.

I'm in UKland too! Just rather rural (put TN27 0DD into Google Maps);
OK, you may think mid-Kent can't be rural, but a car is, while not
absolutely necessary, more than somewhat useful. I like your bit about
the Romans! Certainly, a lot of our streets are definitely not suitable
for the size of cars that are the norm in USia. (There's a current TV
ad. for a car that goes "blah, blah, SUV - designed for the city". What,
for driving through municipal flowerbeds?)
[]
> It's always possible that the SIM is as dumb as a politician and it

I like it (-:
[]
>>>> Lithium cells are not
>>>>normally to be exposed to civilians.
>>>
>>> They are in UKland. A lot. Maybe we're more trustworthy? :)
>>
>>(-: [And, therefore, the cells are usually not soldered in.]
>
> Well, mine never have been.
>
> Except in the Mac's. Apple seems to have a weird idea about "fixing"
>stuff in that they don't want to allow it.
>
The EC has clamped down on that, and I gather the latest iPhone _is_
more accessible in that way. (I know we're not in the EC, but I think
we'll benefit.)
[]
> Oh, we do have SIM-free phones. They tend to be "smart", loaded with
>Google and too busy for my taste. They do have the advantage of being
>able to take more than one electronic ghost of a SIM at once so you
>can have more than one number on your box. That's good for
>self-employer roofers and plumbers and such-like.
>
Last time I had a smartphone, it had two physical SIM slots. (It was a
DooGee - not a make most people have heard of here, but well-known on
eBay and elsewhere.)
[]
>>Basically, as far as the mobile/cellular network is concerned, it's
>>using the 4G/5G/whatever network, so it has a number - even if you don't
>>know what it is. It has to, so your access can be enabled and charged
>>for. The same applies to _anything_ that uses the networks, like AIUI
>>most new cars.
>
> That's funny. Cars running about with invisible mobile 'phones that
>can't be used to call for help. I suppose it's inevitable, given the
>technology we have, but I would have preferred an I.P. address. Still,
>it works so I'm not whining.
>
I think calling for help is one thing they can do - not under user
control, but I think if they detect a sudden deceleration, they do.
Though I'm rather suspicious that the main _purpose_ of such
connectivity is some combination of Big Brother wanting to track where
all vehicles are at all times (they have SatNav, of course, so a GPS
decoder), and the manufacturers wanting to "offer updates" [OK for the
SatNav, I don't want for anything else!] and be able to disable the car.
[]
> Yeah, I looked into that. The companies used to insist on having a
>land-line to attach the broadband to. This used to mean you needed a
>telephone *number*.

Well, they need _some_ way for the broadband signals to get into your
house! Initially that used the physical 'phone line (and remains so for
many addresses), even if it isn't actually _used_ for 'phone service; in
some places, particularly in towns, they're installing
fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP).
>
> When I looked around a couple of days ago, they had separated the
>two. A *line* is still needed, but you don't need telephone service
>any longer.
>
That's because - allegedly sometime next year (2025), though I expect
it'll be ragged - they're turning off the old telephone system
altogether. (Most of the reasons given don't stand up to scrutiny, such
as difficulty in getting parts; it's definitely a cost-cutting exercise.
Access to emergency services when well into a power cut is something
they're just shrugging their shoulders about.)
[]
> Thank you for helping,
> J.
You're welcome - even if it's mostly been just reminiscing (-:
>
>>[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Whoever decided to limit tagline length to 68 characters can kiss my

In message <etbgvitkg8f621ta5mrpuip580s2vuu8s8@4ax.com> at Mon, 18 Mar
2024 12:32:02, John <Man@the.keyboard> writes
[]
>>There are lots of free third-party utilities
>
> Yeah, I've used them lots over the decades. I've no idea whether I
>have any installed at present, apart from "ip_config" and her
>relatives from Windows.
>
>>(one may even have come
>>with the wi-fi card in your PC, if you've still got the CD!)
>
> From 2013? Hmm, maybe.
[]
> I suspect the wi-fi card didn't come with one. It's integral to the
>PC so it probably never needed one.

Probably still an add-on card, but if it was installed when you got the
PC, you may not have any software/driver disc. I don't _think_ I
remember seeing motherboards with integrated wifi, but there may have
been some.
>
>> that will
>>list networks your card can see, along with what channels they're
>>currently using, signal strength, what encryption they're using*, and
>>other things (in a manner that's easier to read than the popup list you
>>get when you click on the tray icon). One of those - especially if it
>>lists 2.4GHz and 5GHz networks separately - should give you some hint as
>>to whether the card _has_ 5G or not.
>
> Good thinking. I'll browse about. Thank you.
>
I had a quick poke around, and
https://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wifi_information_view.html looks like
it'll meet the bill; I very much respect the nirsoft stuff. Just trying
- download; scan; install - oh, I've already got it (as part of the
suite). Still, it's a newer version, so I'll replace it. Trying ...
NirLauncher, Network Monitoring Tools, WifiInfoView, Run: Hmm, despite
my rural location, I can see 34. At a quick glance, about half are on a
frequency beginning 204, and half 5.x. Two (one of each) are my own
network. Interesting: although PlusNet told me it was a "Hub 2", it
shows up as a "BT Hub 6 DX"; I suspect therefore that the (taped-over)
telephone socket _does_ have something behind it, so I _won't_ have to
buy a VoIP adapter when I am forced to switch to VoIP.
>>
>>* Some will appear to be totally unencrypted, and you can connect to
>>them - but all you'll see, whatever page you try to go to, is a login
>>page (I think generated by the router). They're part of a network/ISP -
>>I think it's BT, though there may be other providers who do the same -
>>which offer access anywhere they have a customer whose router is turned
>>on; if you're a customer of that ISP, _your_ router will be accessible
>>by other customers of the same ISP. (I think you John said you don't use
>>a landline, so you won't be a member of such an arrangement.)
>
> If you're talking about BT/FON, yes I have one of their routers. They
>used to sell them for pennies and to allow us to access any FON router
>in anyone's home so long as we shared a bit of our home bandwidth with
>the world of FON customers.

That's the one. Originally a Spanish idea, I think. None of the ones I
can see have FON in their SSIDs, but there are several with no
encryption, and they all seem to be called EE Wifi (or EE WiFi-X), so
maybe that company has taken over that idea.
>
> I did that for years. It allowed me to FON-up when traveling.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Radio 4 is the civilising influence in this country ... I think it is the most
important institution in this country. - John Humphrys, Radio Times
7-13/06/2003

On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:43:46 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <etbgvitkg8f621ta5mrpuip580s2vuu8s8@4ax.com> at Mon, 18 Mar
>2024 12:32:02, John <Man@the.keyboard> writes
>[]
>>>There are lots of free third-party utilities
>>
>> Yeah, I've used them lots over the decades. I've no idea whether I
>>have any installed at present, apart from "ip_config" and her
>>relatives from Windows.
>>
>>>(one may even have come
>>>with the wi-fi card in your PC, if you've still got the CD!)
>>
>> From 2013? Hmm, maybe.
>[]
>> I suspect the wi-fi card didn't come with one. It's integral to the
>>PC so it probably never needed one.
>
>Probably still an add-on card, but if it was installed when you got the
>PC, you may not have any software/driver disc. I don't _think_ I
>remember seeing motherboards with integrated wifi, but there may have
>been some.

My last few motherboards have come with integrated WiFi, but I've never used it.
It seems to be fairly common these days, at least among the stuff that I look
at.

On 3/18/2024 5:18 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:43:46 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <etbgvitkg8f621ta5mrpuip580s2vuu8s8@4ax.com> at Mon, 18 Mar
>> 2024 12:32:02, John <Man@the.keyboard> writes
>> []
>>>> There are lots of free third-party utilities
>>>
>>> Yeah, I've used them lots over the decades. I've no idea whether I
>>> have any installed at present, apart from "ip_config" and her
>>> relatives from Windows.
>>>
>>>> (one may even have come
>>>> with the wi-fi card in your PC, if you've still got the CD!)
>>>
>>> From 2013? Hmm, maybe.
>> []
>>> I suspect the wi-fi card didn't come with one. It's integral to the
>>> PC so it probably never needed one.
>>
>> Probably still an add-on card, but if it was installed when you got the
>> PC, you may not have any software/driver disc. I don't _think_ I
>> remember seeing motherboards with integrated wifi, but there may have
>> been some.
>
> My last few motherboards have come with integrated WiFi, but I've never used it.
> It seems to be fairly common these days, at least among the stuff that I look
> at.
>

The only reason I'd want my Wifi on a PCIe card, is if the PCIe
card could have four coax on the faceplate. And you could have
an antenna (with magnet) with the four antennas on it.

Form factors which use the M.2 for the circuit board,
tend to be too small for a high performance design.

The reason I like that concept, is if you have a computer case
with steel sides and top, you can position the antenna array
for best reception. The magnet on mine is strong enough, it
holds the two antenna thing on the side of the case, without
any sign whatsoever, of the magnet sliding down the case.

Here we go, "microwave popcorn ready when you are"

https://www.asus.com/ca-en/networking-iot-servers/adapters/all-series/pce-ac88/

In a speed test (that's an "old tech" example), it still only does 100MB/sec.

https://www.digitalcitizen.life/reviewing-asus-pce-ac88-wireless-pci-express-network-card-can/2/

If a design has more room, it can have bipolar microwave amps to
drive the output. Less likely to degrade than CMOS.

Paul

John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:
> On 17 Mar 2024 14:24:22 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
> wrote:
[...]
> > What changed? Hasn't the "*.2.4G" name always been visible to the
> >Win-7 box, but you just didn't notice it?
>
> No. The two "networks" operate as though they were in separate boxes
> miles apart and had never met.
>
> When one is selected, the other is switched off and not discoverable.
> Why this is so, I have no idea. It's probably something to do with
> cost and profiteering. Everything is, today.

I see! As the other John wrote, very odd.

> It was just my stubborn streak that had me pick the 5G one and stick
> with it. As it works with non-Win boxen, I *assumed* that the Win-7
> box was simply being Microsofty and that all I needed to do was to
> call for help and one of you fine folk would tell me about a hidden
> switch in the Win-7 system that would make it visible. I couldn't find
> one online, not even in the manufacturer's sites but that didn't mean
> one didn't exist.
>
> Lots of things aren't documented.
>
> It seems that I was possibly wrong and that the 5G isn't ever going
> to be visible to my Wi-fi card.
>
> That's life. Well, it is when you insist on using an obsolete machine
> from 2012/2013 running an OS that is not supported.

Well, it's more strange that the Alcatel 5G mobile hotspot doesn't
support 2.4GHz and 5GHz simultaneously. Most stuff does. Forward and
backward compatibility and all that jazz.

> > Probably the ('old') Wi-Fi of your Win-7 box is not 5GHz capable, so
> >you won't see the "*.5G" name, but the "*.2.4G" name should always have
> >been visible to your Win-7 box.
>
> Yerp. Good thinking. I wish *I* had had such clarity. :)

Well, I'm brilliant, so these things come naturally! :-)

But seriously, my 2015 laptop also only had 2.4GHz and so has my
wife's 'desktop'. My current 2022 laptop has both 2.4GHz and 5GHz, so
I'm used to work in a mixed frequency environment.

> > So most likely situation: Your Macs are somewhat newer and have 5GHz
> >(and 2.4GHz) adapters. Your Win-7 box is 'old' and only has a 2.4GHz
> >adapter.
>
> Yerp.
>
> Mac's are M1 and M2 boxen. Apple silicon. One I bought, one was a
> very generous gift. They work fine on both "networks".

Thanks for the confirmation.

> Thank you,

You're very, very welcome.

On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:43:46 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <etbgvitkg8f621ta5mrpuip580s2vuu8s8@4ax.com> at Mon, 18 Mar
>2024 12:32:02, John <Man@the.keyboard> writes
>[]
>>>There are lots of free third-party utilities
>>
>> Yeah, I've used them lots over the decades. I've no idea whether I
>>have any installed at present, apart from "ip_config" and her
>>relatives from Windows.
>>
>>>(one may even have come
>>>with the wi-fi card in your PC, if you've still got the CD!)
>>
>> From 2013? Hmm, maybe.
>[]
>> I suspect the wi-fi card didn't come with one. It's integral to the
>>PC so it probably never needed one.
>
>Probably still an add-on card, but if it was installed when you got the
>PC, you may not have any software/driver disc. I don't _think_ I
>remember seeing motherboards with integrated wifi, but there may have
>been some.
>>
>>> that will
>>>list networks your card can see, along with what channels they're
>>>currently using, signal strength, what encryption they're using*, and
>>>other things (in a manner that's easier to read than the popup list you
>>>get when you click on the tray icon). One of those - especially if it
>>>lists 2.4GHz and 5GHz networks separately - should give you some hint as
>>>to whether the card _has_ 5G or not.
>>
>> Good thinking. I'll browse about. Thank you.
>>
>I had a quick poke around,

Thank you for that. It has saved me, and possibly many others, from
doing the work. :)

>and
>https://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wifi_information_view.html looks like
>it'll meet the bill;

As is often the case with NIRsoft stuff, it looks like solid,
competently-written software and it seems to do just about everything
possible.

I trust NIRSoft. They do good work.

> I very much respect the nirsoft stuff. Just trying
>- download; scan; install - oh, I've already got it (as part of the
>suite). Still, it's a newer version, so I'll replace it. Trying ...
>NirLauncher, Network Monitoring Tools, WifiInfoView, Run: Hmm, despite
>my rural location, I can see 34. At a quick glance, about half are on a
>frequency beginning 204, and half 5.x. Two (one of each) are my own
>network. Interesting: although PlusNet told me it was a "Hub 2", it
>shows up as a "BT Hub 6 DX"; I suspect therefore that the (taped-over)
>telephone socket _does_ have something behind it, so I _won't_ have to
>buy a VoIP adapter when I am forced to switch to VoIP.

Cool.

>>>
>>>* Some will appear to be totally unencrypted, and you can connect to
>>>them - but all you'll see, whatever page you try to go to, is a login
>>>page (I think generated by the router). They're part of a network/ISP -
>>>I think it's BT, though there may be other providers who do the same -
>>>which offer access anywhere they have a customer whose router is turned
>>>on; if you're a customer of that ISP, _your_ router will be accessible
>>>by other customers of the same ISP. (I think you John said you don't use
>>>a landline, so you won't be a member of such an arrangement.)
>>
>> If you're talking about BT/FON, yes I have one of their routers. They
>>used to sell them for pennies and to allow us to access any FON router
>>in anyone's home so long as we shared a bit of our home bandwidth with
>>the world of FON customers.
>
>That's the one. Originally a Spanish idea, I think. None of the ones I
>can see have FON in their SSIDs, but there are several with no
>encryption, and they all seem to be called EE Wifi (or EE WiFi-X), so
>maybe that company has taken over that idea.

BT and EE (or "E"? I don't bother to keep up.) merged a while back.
BT also merged with FON so FON is probably a loose, flappy bit of "E".
There is at least one "EE" wi-fi within range of my Ralinky card.
I've hooked into it for a few seconds, once, but as I had my own I
didn't need it.

>>
>> I did that for years. It allowed me to FON-up when traveling.
>[]

I still have the FON router.

J.

On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:18:43 -0500, Char Jackson <none@none.invalid>
wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:43:46 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <etbgvitkg8f621ta5mrpuip580s2vuu8s8@4ax.com> at Mon, 18 Mar
>>2024 12:32:02, John <Man@the.keyboard> writes
>>[]
>>>>There are lots of free third-party utilities
>>>
>>> Yeah, I've used them lots over the decades. I've no idea whether I
>>>have any installed at present, apart from "ip_config" and her
>>>relatives from Windows.
>>>
>>>>(one may even have come
>>>>with the wi-fi card in your PC, if you've still got the CD!)
>>>
>>> From 2013? Hmm, maybe.
>>[]
>>> I suspect the wi-fi card didn't come with one. It's integral to the
>>>PC so it probably never needed one.
>>
>>Probably still an add-on card, but if it was installed when you got the
>>PC, you may not have any software/driver disc. I don't _think_ I
>>remember seeing motherboards with integrated wifi, but there may have
>>been some.
>
>My last few motherboards have come with integrated WiFi, but I've never used it.
>It seems to be fairly common these days, at least among the stuff that I look
>at.

Mine may be an add-on, daughter card or it could be part of a
system-on-a-chip smooshed into the CPU. I have never investigated it
and I don't see any reason why I should.

That laziness will inevitably bite me in the arse at some later date
when things go south.

Still, it's worked for 11 years so I'm happy with it.

J.

On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:05:20 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
wrote:

>On 3/18/2024 5:18 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:43:46 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <etbgvitkg8f621ta5mrpuip580s2vuu8s8@4ax.com> at Mon, 18 Mar
>>> 2024 12:32:02, John <Man@the.keyboard> writes
>>> []
>>>>> There are lots of free third-party utilities
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I've used them lots over the decades. I've no idea whether I
>>>> have any installed at present, apart from "ip_config" and her
>>>> relatives from Windows.
>>>>
>>>>> (one may even have come
>>>>> with the wi-fi card in your PC, if you've still got the CD!)
>>>>
>>>> From 2013? Hmm, maybe.
>>> []
>>>> I suspect the wi-fi card didn't come with one. It's integral to the
>>>> PC so it probably never needed one.
>>>
>>> Probably still an add-on card, but if it was installed when you got the
>>> PC, you may not have any software/driver disc. I don't _think_ I
>>> remember seeing motherboards with integrated wifi, but there may have
>>> been some.
>>
>> My last few motherboards have come with integrated WiFi, but I've never used it.
>> It seems to be fairly common these days, at least among the stuff that I look
>> at.
>>
>
>The only reason I'd want my Wifi on a PCIe card, is if the PCIe
>card could have four coax on the faceplate. And you could have
>an antenna (with magnet) with the four antennas on it.
>
>Form factors which use the M.2 for the circuit board,
>tend to be too small for a high performance design.
>
>The reason I like that concept, is if you have a computer case
>with steel sides and top, you can position the antenna array
>for best reception. The magnet on mine is strong enough, it
>holds the two antenna thing on the side of the case, without
>any sign whatsoever, of the magnet sliding down the case.
>
>Here we go, "microwave popcorn ready when you are"
>
>https://www.asus.com/ca-en/networking-iot-servers/adapters/all-series/pce-ac88/

########################### quoted ###########################

*PCE-AC88 is a 4x4 MU-MIMO adapter. For full MU-MIMO operation it
requires a MU-MIMO router with more than four spatial streams. Such
routers are not currently available, but are expected to appear at a
future date.

###############################################################

The little bugger is anticipating future-tech. That's ever so neat.

>
>In a speed test (that's an "old tech" example), it still only does 100MB/sec.

"*ONLY*" 100MB/s? When I did a speedtest on my former land-line based
Internet connection, it came up with 0.03MB/s which I thought was
rather iffy.

>
>https://www.digitalcitizen.life/reviewing-asus-pce-ac88-wireless-pci-express-network-card-can/2/
>
>If a design has more room, it can have bipolar microwave amps to
>drive the output. Less likely to degrade than CMOS.

A bipolar microwave, amped up. That's not a concept I ever thought
I'd see.

Just as a random thought, doesn't the huge magnetic field interfere
with the spinning rusty drives? Or do you only use SSD's? Magnets and
rusty drives used to be vicious enemies. Indeed they used to use one
to nuke the other for security purposes.

J.

>
> Paul

On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 12:43:05 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>(Would have replied by email, as it's a general chat, but I sensed it's
>probably not a real email!)
>
>In message <j88gvihejmbt3i0pb5qvp6h891n7rhopfd@4ax.com> at Mon, 18 Mar
>2024 11:35:35, John <Man@the.keyboard> writes
>>On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:10:04 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
>><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In message <48cdvihh3fauhmhugk3b8olq8q8ac889sk@4ax.com> at Sun, 17 Mar
>>>2024 09:44:16, John <Man@the.keyboard> writes
>>>>On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:03:41 -0400, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sir, thank you for such a detailed and thoughtful reply. I'll respond
>>>>to some points inline if that's okay?
>>>
>>>I wish everybody would do that, all the time; IMO, makes it _much_
>>>easier to follow what's going on. Sadly, it's a disappearing art - I
>>
>> Well, I *was* using Usenet way back in the previous Century, deep
>>into the last Millennium before this one, so I've acquired some bad
>>habits. :)
>
>No, _good_ habits!
>
>[] (short for "[something snipped here]")

Oh. I've used "<<snipped>>" for decades. I did wonder what "[]" was
but I didn't put in the mental processing to work it out. I just
stored it in one of the "people are strange" blobs of protoplasm I use
for wetware storage.

I have loads of those.

>
>> My idiot sister sometimes does this, too. It's a Thing. It's probably
>>due to Microsoft's old, old Outhouse mail programs opening a reply-to
>>email with the cursor at the top and no Training Officer ever telling
>>newbies that the cursor can be moved.
>
>To be fair, starting with the cursor at the top is a _good_ thing, if
>interposting and snipping is used;

Hmm, perhaps but they *don't* interpost or snip. I've taught trainees
to do those things, and others, and they get this massive lightbulb
moment that seems to change their lives.

It's like they suddenly see that the software can do what *they* want
to do not just one trick.

>however, OE more or less came in when
>the concept of a Training Officer for newbies was going out.

Well, I was a sort of training officer for new guys until about 2012.
Then I stopped. I also stopped using OE, O, MSOffice and all that crud
at the same time.

It's a vast relief.

>(Entirely
>bottom-posting is almost as bad, especially if no snipping is done - and
>particularly irritating for those using Braille or speech interfaces.)

True.

>>
>> My sister also insists on quoting, *below* her reply, all previous
>>text in the conversation. She would include images, too but Google
>>seems to elide them for her sometimes.
>
>Snipping is joining interposting as a lost art.

Which is funny. We only had those as arts and skills for about twenty
years or so.

Still, I have many other "skills" that will never be used because the
tech they work on has gone the way of pteranodons.

>[]
>>>There may be a setting - probably in the BIOS - that determines whether
>>>the USB sockets turn off when the PC is in various levels of sleep. It
>>>may also be the case that some of the ports do and some don't.
>>
>> Yerp, good thinking, but far too much like work to get the box
>>running. Plugging her into the wall seemed more expedient.
>>
>It's fairly obvious once you are looking for it: something like "leave
>USB ports powered during sleep". It's there more or less specifically
>for that reason - so people can use their PC as a 'phone charger.

I've used my PC as a 'phone charger for decades, and the MBP, too
without ever fiddling with the settings. They seem to know when a box
is milking them.

> If
>you've got the wall-warts though, probably better (other than taking up
>another socket); sometimes they might output more power, too, than the
>PC ports, especially on an older PC. (And they're not awkwardly round
>the back, too.)

My 2013, Win-7 Ultimate box has USB ports at the rear, at the front
under a slidey cover and on its forehead. Many of them are
"superspeed" USB 3.0 or something.

It was the last gasp of Win-7 tech advancing into the bleeding edge
of greatness at the time I bought it. Win-10 boxen were flooding the
stores and those were actually poorer in resources, ports and
specifications.

I guess she'll die or become obsolete at some point but for now she
works beautifully.

>[]
>>>> So it says. Never having been inside a "Starbucks", and only having
>>>>had the toy for a couple of days, I'd need to take that one on trust.
>>>
>>>Read McDonalds. (Though in most Macs here, [a] I don't know if they'd
>>>take too kindly to your staying there for hours, [b] you'd overstay the
>>>free car parking - often 90 minutes - and invoke a fee that's many tens
>>>of pounds.)
>>
>> Well, "(a" wouldn't bother me as no-one seems to care if I occupy a
>>seat in their house for hours. I'm quiet, polite and I do order the
>>odd cup of sludge so I'm taken as furniture.
>>
>> "(b)" wouldn't be an issue as I don't drive a motorised carriage. I
>>never have. Many of my relative do but more than a few don't. It's
>>just not a compulsion in UKland as it is in USAlia. We can *often*
>>walk to the shops on pedestrian pathways. UKland, England, was
>>designed for Roman soldiers marching about annoying the natives. It
>>has multi-millennia old roads that still work, though some of the
>>newer ones are far less pleasant, accessible and safe.
>
>I'm in UKland too! Just rather rural (put TN27 0DD into Google Maps);
>OK, you may think mid-Kent can't be rural, but a car is, while not
>absolutely necessary, more than somewhat useful.

I see that. I'm in the middle of a City and a car would be bloody
useful at times. Buses don't run all night and some things are well
outside easy walking distance.

Fortunately, taxis exist. They exist for a reason. I'm the reason. :)
I *like* taxis.

>I like your bit about
>the Romans! Certainly, a lot of our streets are definitely not suitable
>for the size of cars that are the norm in USia. (There's a current TV
>ad. for a car that goes "blah, blah, SUV - designed for the city". What,
>for driving through municipal flowerbeds?)

See Youtube videos advertising the USAlien "Canyonero". It's the
epitome of USAlien personal transport.

>[]
>> It's always possible that the SIM is as dumb as a politician and it
>
>I like it (-:
>[]
>>>>> Lithium cells are not
>>>>>normally to be exposed to civilians.
>>>>
>>>> They are in UKland. A lot. Maybe we're more trustworthy? :)
>>>
>>>(-: [And, therefore, the cells are usually not soldered in.]
>>
>> Well, mine never have been.
>>
>> Except in the Mac's. Apple seems to have a weird idea about "fixing"
>>stuff in that they don't want to allow it.
>>
>The EC has clamped down on that, and I gather the latest iPhone _is_
>more accessible in that way. (I know we're not in the EC, but I think
>we'll benefit.)

Apple has problems. They send kit to weird little places with weird
little laws that demand weird little specification changes and they
can't just ignore all those weirdnesses. Thanks to "Dodge versus Ford"
in the 1920's, they *must* try to make profits everywhere so they end
up with strange wall-plugs, odd languages, deranged keyboards and lots
of other annoying, fiddly bits.

It's their fault for being global but it's not *entirely* of their
making.

I sometimes feel a distant bit of sympathy for them. Just a teentsy,
tiny bit.

As far as UKland and Yurp go, that was both insane idiocy and a
nasty, mean, vicious, calculated act by hyper-wealthy guys to prevent
an E.U. directive from forcing them to reveal their off-shore assets.
They were given five years before the directive kicked in and they
made bloody good use of all of that time.
And we're suffering for it.

Still, so long as our multi-trillionaire owners can afford to provide
jobs for stewards and cleaners on their many super-yachts I suppose
they are helping The Economoy and that's a Good Thing.

>[]
>> Oh, we do have SIM-free phones. They tend to be "smart", loaded with
>>Google and too busy for my taste. They do have the advantage of being
>>able to take more than one electronic ghost of a SIM at once so you
>>can have more than one number on your box. That's good for
>>self-employer roofers and plumbers and such-like.
>>
>Last time I had a smartphone, it had two physical SIM slots. (It was a
>DooGee - not a make most people have heard of here, but well-known on
>eBay and elsewhere.)

On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:22:41 +0000, John <Man@the.keyboard> wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:43:46 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>

<<snipped>>

>>I had a quick poke around,
>
> Thank you for that. It has saved me, and possibly many others, from
>doing the work. :)
>
>
>
>>and
>>https://www.nirsoft.net/utils/wifi_information_view.html looks like
>>it'll meet the bill;
>
> As is often the case with NIRsoft stuff, it looks like solid,
>competently-written software and it seems to do just about everything
>possible.
>
> I trust NIRSoft. They do good work.
>
>> I very much respect the nirsoft stuff. Just trying
>>- download; scan; install - oh, I've already got it (as part of the
>>suite). Still, it's a newer version, so I'll replace it. Trying ...
>>NirLauncher, Network Monitoring Tools, WifiInfoView, Run: Hmm, despite
>>my rural location, I can see 34. At a quick glance, about half are on a
>>frequency beginning 204, and half 5.x. Two (one of each) are my own
>>network. Interesting: although PlusNet told me it was a "Hub 2", it
>>shows up as a "BT Hub 6 DX"; I suspect therefore that the (taped-over)
>>telephone socket _does_ have something behind it, so I _won't_ have to
>>buy a VoIP adapter when I am forced to switch to VoIP.
>
> Cool.

Okay. Downloaded, "installed" and I've run it.

Too much information. I need breakfast and tea then a lie down before
I can process this. :)

<<snipped>>

>>That's the one. Originally a Spanish idea, I think. None of the ones I
>>can see have FON in their SSIDs, but there are several with no
>>encryption, and they all seem to be called EE Wifi (or EE WiFi-X), so
>>maybe that company has taken over that idea.
>
> BT and EE (or "E"? I don't bother to keep up.) merged a while back.
>BT also merged with FON so FON is probably a loose, flappy bit of "E".
> There is at least one "EE" wi-fi within range of my Ralinky card.
>I've hooked into it for a few seconds, once, but as I had my own I
>didn't need it.
>
>>>
>>> I did that for years. It allowed me to FON-up when traveling.
>>[]
>
> I still have the FON router.

Oh, and there are, according to the NIRsoft thing, more than 3 EE FON
spots within poking range of my PC. All without security, as the
company requests, so "guests" can use them.

That's interesting.

J.

>
> J.
>

In message <j2ilvipqka3bfphft23unhksoufte5bpmg@4ax.com> at Wed, 20 Mar
2024 11:36:47, John <Man@the.keyboard> writes
[]
> Just as a random thought, doesn't the huge magnetic field interfere
>with the spinning rusty drives? Or do you only use SSD's? Magnets and
>rusty drives used to be vicious enemies. Indeed they used to use one
>to nuke the other for security purposes.
[]
That's why the drives have a metal housing.

The field strength from wifi kit - even if amplified to levels that are
above legal - is unlikely to be significant; we're mainly talking
milliwatts here. It'd I suspect be dangerous to humans before it was
strong enough to affect a hard drive. Even that on the mobile (cellular)
side of phones/hotspots/whatever is probably only in tens of milliwatts
- unlikely to affect hard drives, or humans for that matter, though
those who have a fobile clamped to their ear for a significant part of
their waking hours might fry their brain a little - if they have one,
that is.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Practicall every British actor with a bus pass is in there ...
Barry Norman (on "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" [2011]), RT 2015/12/12-18

In message <gohlvipp0jsc1epgod2b7vq9reudo5s68g@4ax.com> at Wed, 20 Mar
2024 11:25:19, John <Man@the.keyboard> writes
[]
> Mine may be an add-on, daughter card or it could be part of a
>system-on-a-chip smooshed into the CPU. I have never investigated it
>and I don't see any reason why I should.

Well, although I'm mostly a believer in "if it ain't broke, don't fix
it", I _would_ at least have a _look_: if nothing else, seeing how its
aerials connect might help you better with placement/orientation.
>
> That laziness will inevitably bite me in the arse at some later date
>when things go south.

Oh, it gets all of us!
>
> Still, it's worked for 11 years so I'm happy with it.
>
> J.
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Practicall every British actor with a bus pass is in there ...
Barry Norman (on "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" [2011]), RT 2015/12/12-18

In message <opilvi1h1jihi94ff8rodifuv0lc5dgged@4ax.com> at Wed, 20 Mar
2024 12:18:53, John <Man@the.keyboard> writes
>On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 12:43:05 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[]
>>[] (short for "[something snipped here]")
>
> Oh. I've used "<<snipped>>" for decades. I did wonder what "[]" was
>but I didn't put in the mental processing to work it out. I just
>stored it in one of the "people are strange" blobs of protoplasm I use
>for wetware storage.

Oh, I'm very strange. But [] is easy to type.
[]
>>To be fair, starting with the cursor at the top is a _good_ thing, if
>>interposting and snipping is used;
>
> Hmm, perhaps but they *don't* interpost or snip. I've taught trainees

That's just it - most are not taught.

>to do those things, and others, and they get this massive lightbulb
>moment that seems to change their lives.

Only some, though: for many, that light never dawns (especially if
they've got into the habit of _not_ doing them). Very depressing.
[]
> Well, I was a sort of training officer for new guys until about 2012.
>Then I stopped. I also stopped using OE, O, MSOffice and all that crud
>at the same time.
>
> It's a vast relief.

I carried on using O at work, as I had to. Outlook-quotefix by Dominic
Jain (the big brother of his OE-quotefix) helped until a version of O
came along that it wouldn't work with (in 200x).
[]
>>> My sister also insists on quoting, *below* her reply, all previous
>>>text in the conversation. She would include images, too but Google
>>>seems to elide them for her sometimes.
>>
>>Snipping is joining interposting as a lost art.
>
> Which is funny. We only had those as arts and skills for about twenty
>years or so.
>
> Still, I have many other "skills" that will never be used because the
>tech they work on has gone the way of pteranodons.
>
Lots of such skills have limited life. In my own field of electronics,
my knowledge of the TTL logic families is almost certainly useless now.
I suspect much in the area of car mechanics is now of little use except
on cars over about 20 years old. Draughtsmanship. U. v. a.
[]
> My 2013, Win-7 Ultimate box has USB ports at the rear, at the front
>under a slidey cover and on its forehead. Many of them are
>"superspeed" USB 3.0 or something.
>
> It was the last gasp of Win-7 tech advancing into the bleeding edge
>of greatness at the time I bought it. Win-10 boxen were flooding the
>stores and those were actually poorer in resources, ports and
>specifications.

Ah, but some "must have the latest". My favourite example of that was in
the transition of TVs from 4:3 to "shortscreen"; there was a time when
you could buy a - new - 4:3 TV *of the same _width_ as* a new
shortscreen one, for noticeably less money. That means those who bought
the shortscreen ones could watch a widescreen film or programme at the
same size as those who bought the 4:3 one, but could only watch 4:3
material (of which there was still plenty then) either noticeably
smaller ("pillarboxed"), or squashed (which is what they usually chose).
But they had to have a TV of the new shape.
[]
>>I'm in UKland too! Just rather rural (put TN27 0DD into Google Maps);
>>OK, you may think mid-Kent can't be rural, but a car is, while not
>>absolutely necessary, more than somewhat useful.

I'm without it for a while now - something about the clutch linkage
failed this afternoon! Fortunately, I'd just done a big shop.
[]
> Fortunately, taxis exist. They exist for a reason. I'm the reason. :)
> I *like* taxis.

So do I, but I don't think there's one in the village.
[]
>>Last time I had a smartphone, it had two physical SIM slots. (It was a
>>DooGee - not a make most people have heard of here, but well-known on
>>eBay and elsewhere.)
>
> Yet other rabbit-hole for me to dive into when I get bored. Thank you
>for it. :)
>
Someone at work said it appeared to be a clone of a - I forget what, I
think he said some Samsung model.
[]
>>> Yeah, I looked into that. The companies used to insist on having a
>>>land-line to attach the broadband to. This used to mean you needed a
>>>telephone *number*.
>>
>>Well, they need _some_ way for the broadband signals to get into your
>>house!
>
> Really? Truly? Well, I just never thought of that! :)
>
>>Initially that used the physical 'phone line (and remains so for
>>many addresses), even if it isn't actually _used_ for 'phone service; in
>>some places, particularly in towns, they're installing
>>fibre-to-the-premises (FTTP).
>
> I think this was once installed in my house and might still be there
>but if so it's old and unused.
>
Or, in a city, it might be the old "cable" for "cable TV", i. e. coax;
"cable" never really got going in UK.
[]
>>Access to emergency services when well into a power cut is something
>>they're just shrugging their shoulders about.)
>
> "If they die, they die." <shrug> from the big blond guys. Anyway, we
>can always use our iPhones.
>
> One reason they may be killing POTS is for the copper wires.
>
> J.
>
In some cases, perhaps, but I suspect in the vast majority of cases, the
labour cost of replacing them will far exceed the scrap value of the
cost. Many - possibly even most - of us will continue to receive
broadband via the old copper wires for some time: basically until
they're replacing it for some other reason, such as higher capacity
being needed (for new houses) or it having failed. The real saving (for
them!) will, I think, be in not having to maintain the analogue
switching and interfacing equipment in the exchanges. (Which I think in
most cases still supports pulse dialling!)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Practicall every British actor with a bus pass is in there ...
Barry Norman (on "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" [2011]), RT 2015/12/12-18

On 3/20/2024 1:21 PM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <j2ilvipqka3bfphft23unhksoufte5bpmg@4ax.com> at Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:36:47, John <Man@the.keyboard> writes
> []
>> Just as a random thought, doesn't the huge magnetic field interfere
>> with the spinning rusty drives? Or do you only use SSD's? Magnets and
>> rusty drives used to be vicious enemies. Indeed they used to use one
>> to nuke the other for security purposes.
> []
> That's why the drives have a metal housing.
>
> The field strength from wifi kit - even if amplified to levels that are above legal - is unlikely to be significant; we're mainly talking milliwatts here. It'd I suspect be dangerous to humans before it was strong enough to affect a hard drive. Even that on the mobile (cellular) side of phones/hotspots/whatever is probably only in tens of milliwatts - unlikely to affect hard drives, or humans for that matter, though those who have a fobile clamped to their ear for a significant part of their waking hours might fry their brain a little - if they have one, that is.

He was referring to the magnet on the bottom of my dual-antenna.
It's an antenna that connects via coax, to the faceplate
of the PCIe Wifi card.

The magnet is strong enough, it might be neodymium.
I don't think alnico would hold quite as well. A
North American manufacturer would not waste neodymium
on something like that. They'd give us Crazy Glue to
attach it :-)

Paul