I see all sorts of messing about where bbc shows saving lives at sea, which seems to be made by a commercial company, but the other channels
increasingly show bbc things, some mainly repeats.
So surely we have a kind of right to say to bbc, make your own stuff even if it does not fill all your schedules up? Don't sell off cheap your things to the commercial channels.
It just seems that nobody would notice now if bbc started to carry adverts.
I see all sorts of messing about where bbc shows saving lives at sea,
which seems to be made by a commercial company, but the other channels increasingly show bbc things, some mainly repeats. So surely we have a
kind of right to say to bbc, make your own stuff even if it does not fill
all your schedules up? Don't sell off cheap your things to the commercial channels. It just seems that nobody would notice now if bbc started to
carry adverts.
Sigh.
Brian
Brian
The BBC is required to give a certain percentage of its ouput to outside firms. That's part of its licence. I think it was a "Thatcherism".
On 06/08/2022 10:26, charles wrote:
The BBC is required to give a certain percentage of its ouput to outside
firms. That's part of its licence. I think it was a "Thatcherism".
More Heseltine than Thatcher, I think.
Heseltine had an obsessive view that private companies could always do a better and more cost effective job that in-house manpower. When someone challenged him in this view (Question: "What happens if the figures
show that in-house delivery is cheaper than any of the public tenders?")
he gave the dismissive answer "Then I can only assume that you have got
your arithmetic wrong".
On 06/08/2022 10:26, charles wrote:
Brian
The BBC is required to give a certain percentage of its ouput to outside firms. That's part of its licence. I think it was a "Thatcherism".
More Heseltine than Thatcher, I think.
Heseltine had an obsessive view that private companies could always do a better and more cost effective job that in-house manpower. When someone challenged him in this view (Question: "What happens if the figures
show that in-house delivery is cheaper than any of the public tenders?")
he gave the dismissive answer "Then I can only assume that you have got
your arithmetic wrong".
More Heseltine than Thatcher, I think.
Heseltine had an obsessive view that private companies could always
do a better and more cost effective job that in-house manpower.
When someone challenged him in this view (Question: "What happens
if the figures show that in-house delivery is cheaper than any of
the public tenders?") he gave the dismissive answer "Then I can
only assume that you have got your arithmetic wrong".
Surely the big factor isn't if it's in house or not, it's if there's competition. Where you have two (or more) groups of people competing
for a contract then you are likely to get a competitive price
agreement. On the other hand if there is a monopoly why struggle with
keeping down costs you're not going to become unemployed.
There is no reason why an in-house group couldn't decide to compete
with an external quote and they would have the advantage that a
company wouldn't also take a slice.
More usually, in-house groups feel safe and that means wasteful
especially if public funded.
NHS in the middle of a massive health crisis decides to waste
millions on diversity managers and training. Same sort of thing at
the BBC. Neither have direct competition working on the same terms.
The HMRC has 16 full time diversity tsars on the payroll, at a cost
of £1,019,534 a year. Since 2019, the total bill comes to over
£3million. The right person for job depends on their skills,
experience and qualifications. If instead, appointments are made on
the grounds of race and colour then the wrong people get the jobs
and that's £3million wasted doing damage for the sake of absurd
ideologies.
On 06/08/2022 16:07, Bob Latham wrote:
Surely the big factor isn't if it's in house or not, it's if
there's competition. Where you have two (or more) groups of
people competing for a contract then you are likely to get a
competitive price agreement. On the other hand if there is a
monopoly why struggle with keeping down costs you're not going to
become unemployed.
There is no reason why an in-house group couldn't decide to
compete with an external quote and they would have the advantage
that a company wouldn't also take a slice.
More usually, in-house groups feel safe and that means wasteful
especially if public funded.
NHS in the middle of a massive health crisis decides to waste
millions on diversity managers and training. Same sort of thing
at the BBC. Neither have direct competition working on the same
terms.
The BBC has probably had more commissions, committees, MPs and
other "experts" investigating them for as long as I can remember.
When there was just BBC and ITV in direct competition, it was often
said ITV feared BBC having to take adverts because had regularly
getting larger audiences on more strictly controlled budgets than
ITV who famously had the "licence to print money". In those days
it was easy to compare running costs and see that ITV cost more to
run than the BBC even though the BBC had radio etc as well.
After we were privatised, I did not see any more efficient
operation but there was a better PR machine to claim things were
better.
Brian
The BBC is required to give a certain percentage of its ouput to outside firms. That's part of its licence. I think it was a "Thatcherism".
In article <tcl87m$3nt0m$1@dont-email.me>,
Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote:
I see all sorts of messing about where bbc shows saving lives at sea,
which seems to be made by a commercial company, but the other channels
increasingly show bbc things, some mainly repeats. So surely we have a
kind of right to say to bbc, make your own stuff even if it does not fill
all your schedules up? Don't sell off cheap your things to the commercial
channels. It just seems that nobody would notice now if bbc started to
carry adverts.
Sigh.
Brian
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
On 06/08/2022 10:26, charles wrote:
BrianMore Heseltine than Thatcher, I think.
The BBC is required to give a certain percentage of its ouput to outside
firms. That's part of its licence. I think it was a "Thatcherism".
Heseltine had an obsessive view that private companies could always do a better and more cost effective job that in-house manpower. When someone challenged him in this view (Question: "What happens if the figures show that in-house delivery is cheaper than any of the public tenders?") he
gave the dismissive answer "Then I can only assume that you have got your arithmetic wrong".
Jim
On 06/08/2022 20:27, Bob Latham wrote:
The HMRC has 16 full time diversity tsars on the payroll, at a cost
of £1,019,534 a year. Since 2019, the total bill comes to over
£3million. The right person for job depends on their skills,
experience and qualifications. If instead, appointments are made on
the grounds of race and colour then the wrong people get the jobs
and that's £3million wasted doing damage for the sake of absurd
ideologies.
Where is your *EVIDENCE* for these allegations?
--
Fake news kills!
I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: www.macfh.co.uk
That seems a little stupid. I thought Maggie was all bout market forces, as such the BBC should have been quids in pocket. and as forproducers setting themselves up as companies and making the same stuff, yes, Indeed its not just TV. As I recall certain BBC radio folk who were making country and
easy listening programs became Smooth operations and then started a commercial station then<<flogged it to a large company and took the money and ran.>>
Brian
Surely the big factor isn't if it's in house or not, it's if there's competition. Where you have two (or more) groups of people competing for
a contract then you are likely to get a competitive price agreement.
There is no reason why an in-house group couldn't decide to compete with
an external quote and they would have the advantage that a company
wouldn't also take a slice.
NHS in the middle of a massive health crisis decides to waste millions
on diversity managers and training.
On 07/08/2022 09:09, Brian Gaff wrote:
That seems a little stupid. I thought Maggie was all bout market
forces, as such the BBC should have been quids in pocket. and as forproducers setting themselves up as companies and making the same
stuff, yes, Indeed its not just TV. As I recall certain BBC radio folk
who were making country and easy listening programs became Smooth operations and then started a commercial station then<<flogged it to a large company and took the money and ran.>> Brian
Forget the BBC, that is just small change. You have just described
virtually the entire UK privatisation fiasco.
On 06/08/2022 14:29, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 06/08/2022 10:26, charles wrote:
The BBC is required to give a certain percentage of its ouput to outside >>> firms. That's part of its licence. I think it was a "Thatcherism".
More Heseltine than Thatcher, I think.
Heseltine had an obsessive view that private companies could always do
a better and more cost effective job that in-house manpower. When
someone challenged him in this view (Question:Â "What happens if the
figures show that in-house delivery is cheaper than any of the public
tenders?") he gave the dismissive answer "Then I can only assume that
you have got your arithmetic wrong".
Typical quasi-religious political dogma, ignoring relevant facts - as
we see splashed across the news every day while a small subset of the
nation chooses on behalf of us all which liar is going to be our next
leader, unfortunately not a thing of the past, but still wrecking the
country today.
Its like the way they tried to make everyone a shareholder in order that we all had a vested interest in utility companies. OK good idea but just like most people, when shares rose, people sold them and now we have a few huge corporations running the show, and nobody owns shares.
In a way he was right for the short term, but eventually you end up with after all the investment put in, the shareholders expect a return, ie
profit, like more than was put in. So if Government had put in the
investment themselves, surely they could have done the same instead of selling the silver.
Its like the way they tried to make everyone a shareholder in order that we all had a vested interest in utility companies. OK good idea but just like most people, when shares rose, people sold them and now we have a few huge corporations running the show, and nobody owns shares.
Forget the BBC, that is just small change.
You have just described virtually the entire UK privatisation fiasco.
On 06/08/2022 15:12, Java Jive wrote:
I WAS THERE though not the one who asked the question.
On 06/08/2022 14:29, Indy Jess John wrote:
More Heseltine than Thatcher, I think.
Heseltine had an obsessive view that private companies could always
do a better and more cost effective job that in-house manpower. When
someone challenged him in this view (Question:Â "What happens if the
figures show that in-house delivery is cheaper than any of the public
tenders?") he gave the dismissive answer "Then I can only assume that
you have got your arithmetic wrong".
Typical quasi-religious political dogma, ignoring relevant facts -
as we see splashed across the news every day while a small subset of
the nation chooses on behalf of us all which liar is going to be our
next leader, unfortunately not a thing of the past, but still wrecking
the country today.
As Government whines that the
NHS costs too much and the politicians take the donations and jobs from the companies.
Basically, the last couple of decades has become a re-run of pre-Victorian
to Victorian times with 'public services' run for profit extraction,
dodging every possible 'cost'.
Don't just blame the government. There is the well known case of
"nurse" who was a union official (paid by the NHS) but who spent all her
time politically campaigning against the government and "privatisation"
but had a company that did consultancy work for the NHS.
Sure I had read that the investment in infrastructure was the highest
ever but was still catching up on modernising the infastructure from the
days when it was effectiveky nationalised.
Take, for example, broadband, this is a more recent development that post-dates denationalisation
Look now at Energy companies who have carefully arranged that the company that extracts the Oil/Gas from the North Sea is a "different company" to
the one that sells you gas or petrol.
On 07/08/2022 09:31, MikeS wrote:
Forget the BBC, that is just small change. You have just described virtually the entire UK privatisation fiasco.
Some were effective, under the GPO you might have had to wait for years
to get a phone. But then when they get one big company doing it all,
they decide to split up so a simple project that used to done with just
a few phone calls, now needs lots of different people, departments and companies involved.
On 07/08/2022 09:57, Jim Lesurf wrote:
As Government whines that the NHS costs too much and the politicians
take the donations and jobs from the companies.
Don't just blame the government. There is the well known case of
"nurse" who was a union official (paid by the NHS) but who spent all her
time politically campaigning against the government and "privatisation"
but had a company that did consultancy work for the NHS.
On 07/08/2022 10:15, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Look now at Energy companies who have carefully arranged that the
company that extracts the Oil/Gas from the North Sea is a "different company" to the one that sells you gas or petrol.
At least for electricity and gas, and I seem to remember, in the early
days of mobile phones, this was actually something imposed by
government. For gas and electricity, the doctrine was that there had to
be a market, but as all sources got mixed in the same pipes or wires, creating a natural monopoly, they had to create an artificial market in
which one set of companies sold to consumers and another set sold to
them.
On 07/08/2022 17:48, Java Jive wrote:
Take, for example, broadband, this is a more recent development that
post-dates denationalisation
Actually it isn't. A lot of the fundamental work on passive optical networks, which is the generation beyond ADSL, was done by Post Office Research at Martlesham, before they were nationalised. I used to read
both the research journal and the journal for their technicians. The
latter moved from interesting technical articles to commercial awareness
pep talks, as they got privatized. (I forget when the British Telecom branding came in relative to the privatisation, so it might have been
British Telecom Research.
In article <tconlk$kl41$1@dont-email.me>, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 07/08/2022 09:31, MikeS wrote:
Forget the BBC, that is just small change. You have just described virtually the entire UK privatisation fiasco.
Some were effective, under the GPO you might have had to wait for years
to get a phone. But then when they get one big company doing it all,
they decide to split up so a simple project that used to done with just
a few phone calls, now needs lots of different people, departments and companies involved.
IIRC the way the GPO limited the installation of new phones was due to Government decisions.
Jim
although it may now be being used for that purpose, was originally aimed
at other larger-scale uses.
On 07/08/2022 09:09, Brian Gaff wrote:
That seems a little stupid. I thought Maggie was all bout market forces,Forget the BBC, that is just small change.
as
such the BBC should have been quids in pocket. and as forproducers
setting
themselves up as companies and making the same stuff, yes, Indeed its not
just TV. As I recall certain BBC radio folk who were making country and
easy listening programs became Smooth operations and then started a
commercial station then<<flogged it to a large company and took the money
and ran.>>
Brian
You have just described virtually the entire UK privatisation fiasco.
On 08/08/2022 10:37, Java Jive wrote:
although it may now be being used for that purpose, was originally
aimed at other larger-scale uses.
The original, main use case was video on demand. Isn't that what the internet has become?
In article <tcpi4f$nn1l$1@dont-email.me>, David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
On 07/08/2022 10:15, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Look now at Energy companies who have carefully arranged that the
company that extracts the Oil/Gas from the North Sea is a "different
company" to the one that sells you gas or petrol.
At least for electricity and gas, and I seem to remember, in the early
days of mobile phones, this was actually something imposed by
government. For gas and electricity, the doctrine was that there had to
be a market, but as all sources got mixed in the same pipes or wires,
creating a natural monopoly, they had to create an artificial market in
which one set of companies sold to consumers and another set sold to
them.
The advantage for the companies is that they can get many bites at the
cherry whilst pointing at the others for any 'blame'. Its the quick
movements of the hands that distracts the marks.
If we're talking about the days when telephone technology was still a PO affair, I suspect it was not then envisaged that every home would be
having access to video-on-demand?
And I still don't see any relevance to MB's blaming nationalisation
for our poor utility services, against which my invoking of our
current broadband speeds was a counter example.
IIRC the way the GPO limited the installation of new phones was due to Government decisions.
Jim
well. it was a Government Department at the time - with its own Cabinet Minister - the PostMaster General
In article <5a14ad6694charles@candehope.me.uk>, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
IIRC the way the GPO limited the installation of new phones was due to Government decisions.
Jim
well. it was a Government Department at the time - with its own Cabinet Minister - the PostMaster General
Ah! (pun alert!) That rings a bell. I think I recall reading about this
years ago in the Benn Diaries.
Jim
I did that elsewhere, just ask Sid.
I mean who would have thought that the general public would hold onto shares when they became very lucrative to sell to big organisations and down the line well, now we moan about them taking the profits from their earlier investments.
Brian
On 08/08/2022 10:05, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <tcpi4f$nn1l$1@dont-email.me>, David Woolley
<david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
On 07/08/2022 10:15, Jim Lesurf wrote:
Look now at Energy companies who have carefully arranged that the
company that extracts the Oil/Gas from the North Sea is a "different
company" to the one that sells you gas or petrol.
At least for electricity and gas, and I seem to remember, in the early
days of mobile phones, this was actually something imposed by
government. For gas and electricity, the doctrine was that there had to >>> be a market, but as all sources got mixed in the same pipes or wires,
creating a natural monopoly, they had to create an artificial market in
which one set of companies sold to consumers and another set sold to
them.
The advantage for the companies is that they can get many bites at the
cherry whilst pointing at the others for any 'blame'. Its the quick
movements of the hands that distracts the marks.
Given you (a) don't like the fact companies extracting the gas are
different from the ones selling it and (b) point out it all gets mixed
in the gas network which is a natural monopoly it appears (c) you think
there should have been one single entity responsible for all continental shelf gas extraction. That would have required rather a lot of capital
and denied access to a lot of expertise.
And as you mentioned Norway, it ain't what they did either. I can't
think of any developed economy which did it.
On 08/08/2022 12:41, Java Jive wrote:
If we're talking about the days when telephone technology was still a PO
affair, I suspect it was not then envisaged that every home would be
having access to video-on-demand?
I think we are talking about approximately 1982.
What they didn't really consider was the wild days of the internet. Now
one can see the big players, more and more, trying to make it fit their
model of the world. I think e-commerce was one thing they didn't really think about, and they had a simpler view of how the video would get
onto the fibre, with the head end being much closer to the last leg, not
half way across the world, with the need for people like Cloudflare as intermediaries.
And I still don't see any relevance to MB's blaming nationalisation
for our poor utility services, against which my invoking of our
current broadband speeds was a counter example.
Threads drift, but it basically shows that nationalised industries can
still be responsible for key innovations.
Given you (a) don't like the fact companies extracting the gas are
different from the ones selling it and (b) point out it all gets mixed
in the gas network which is a natural monopoly it appears (c) you think
there should have been one single entity responsible for all continental shelf gas extraction.
That would have required rather a lot of capital and denied access to a
lot of expertise.
In article <98fa3b30-9f2f-b078-da92-346a7b144551@outlook.com>, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
Given you (a) don't like the fact companies extracting the gas are
different from the ones selling it and (b) point out it all gets mixed
in the gas network which is a natural monopoly it appears (c) you think
there should have been one single entity responsible for all continental
shelf gas extraction.
Nope. It just would mean that for each area license only one company with a *UK Legal base* would be given the license to extract and deliver onshore. Their price would be the basis of what I explained.
That would have required rather a lot of capital and denied access to a
lot of expertise.
However that wasn't what I was saying. :-)
As it is, the company doing the extraction and piping inwards may be an 'offshore' company. i.e. one whose accounts, etc, and handled somewhere
other than the UK. They then pay a 'tax' set by the agreement giving permission to extract - set when no-one in Government allowed for the situations like the present.
'On shore' this means we get shown only the 'UK company' that buys - at
World price - from the offshore seller, then delivers this to its consumers in the UK. They aren't making the big windfall profits. However all too
often both companies are owned by *another* offshore one, which reaps the money as people here struggle to pay.
Its one of the tricks large companies use to be (polite term) 'Tax
Efficient' (true term) dodge tax. We, like mugs, put up with it.
Of course, some (usually smaller) UK companies have got into the
'retailer' end of this without having any big brother out in the
North Sea. These also tend to have sufferred, but were largely for
the whole process 'window dressing' that gave a gloss to the idea
that the market was/is 'competitive. Hence the way UK Gov did all
this was bad for the much touted 'competition' as it has been,
and now is! - for us mere consumers/people of the UK.
You are moving the goal posts to support your prejudices.
The point was we have a single domestic gas distribution network.
That
could not realistically be duplicated so they created a "market" by
having different companies sell the same gas delivered down the same
pipes. If the recent electricity fiasco doesn't convince you that the artificial distribution "market" is a flawed concept nothing will.
UK gas supplies are purchased from numerous sources in various
countries. It is inevitable for those sources to be owned by different companies or governments. That is a natural market, not an artificial
one created through political dogma.
On 08/08/2022 12:12, Brian Gaff wrote:
I did that elsewhere, just ask Sid.
I mean who would have thought that the general public would hold onto shares when they became very lucrative to sell to big organisations
and down the line well, now we moan about them taking the profits from their earlier investments. Brian
The point was not the general public holding some shares in a few highly publicised stock market floatations. The real killings went to handfuls
of executives allowed to privatise major assets into private companies
for next to nothing. Their risk was minimal knowing the true value of
those assets. Many of them realised 100 or even 200 fold profits after a
few years by selling out to private equity buyers.
Look up what Peter Cochrane former CTO at BT has to say about how the
rollout of fibre to the home across the UK was shut down in 1990 for political reasons.
In article <tcrqtd$1150f$1@dont-email.me>, MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> wrote:
You are moving the goal posts to support your prejudices.
Your error. cf below
The point was we have a single domestic gas distribution network.
That misses the point. :-)
There is one physical distribution network. But we don't buy our gas from
it. We as buy it from whatever 'suppier (of what gets though the physical network) we choose. These compete and are UK companies.
NONE of the above are the ones making huge profits on the back of "World Price". Some may well be in difficulty because of this.
The problem is with the *offshore* companies - yet another *different* set
of companies and role - who physically extract the gas/oil from under the North Sea.
No change need be made with the onshore gas companies you pay your
domestic gas bill to. What I explained would mean they would be able to pay
a lower proce per kWh for the gas they buy from the 'offshore' companies.
So could then all compete in selling it to us, consumers, at a lower price.
Yes, we also buy gas from abroad, and that costs more per kWh. But we would no longer be paying that high price for all of what we consume.
The 'political dogma' is the regid faith that "the market" cures all ills.
It doesn't. That dog doesn't hunt.
I wonder what you think about the legal challenges to be expected under Article 1 of Protocol 1 EHRC.
However the Government advertised this on the basis that we would
become a share-holding set of individuals. Probably knowing full
well that *wasn't* what would happen and most people would sell on
a quick payback profit. So what was once genuinely run for the
population was shifted into an investment for some, taking profits
from the rest of us, year after year.
There is one physical distribution network. But we don't buy our
gas from it. We as buy it from whatever 'suppier (of what gets
though the physical network) we choose. These compete and are UK
companies.
NONE of the above are the ones making huge profits on the back of
"World Price". Some may well be in difficulty because of this.
The problem is with the *offshore* companies - yet another
*different* set of companies and role - who physically extract the
gas/oil from under the North Sea.
I think the reason for both is political pressure from the
liberal/left elite media. The brainwashed 'water melons' (green on
the outside, red on the inside) have painted energy as a great
poluting evil and the people must be starved of it for the good of
the planet. All fine if you're a wealthy champagne socialist.
The privileged, metropolitan socialists (the north London set) no
longer care about the poor and despise the working man, they only
care now about their crazy ideologies and they're happy to push
people into poverty and cold homes in the name of them. The
Conservatives are also now socialists, just blue ones.
The only "legal base" the UK needs to have taxing rights is a permanent establishment in the UK or a trade carried on in the UK. Petroleum extraction is a a permanent establishment (PE).
In article <064da3e6-eb59-9eeb-fb33-18fcbbf58e0c@outlook.com>, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
The only "legal base" the UK needs to have taxing rights is a permanent
establishment in the UK or a trade carried on in the UK. Petroleum
extraction is a a permanent establishment (PE).
Yet the companies you and I 'buy gas from' say they *aren't* making the
huge profits. Indeed, they say they are strugging. Whilst the offshore ones *are* raking it in... yet this seems to be allowed.
Something seems to be missing from your view.
The 'tax' (sic) set on extraction is set by the license to extract, and wasn't set with this sort of situation in mind.
On 09/08/2022 02:05, Owen Rees wrote:
Look up what Peter Cochrane former CTO at BT has to say about how the
rollout of fibre to the home across the UK was shut down in 1990 for
political reasons.
Some links would have been useful, but the first thing I found was this:
How Thatcher killed the UK's superfast broadband before it even existed https://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/how-the-uk-lost-the-broadband-race-in-1990-1224784
On 09/08/2022 13:52, Java Jive wrote:
On 09/08/2022 02:05, Owen Rees wrote:
Look up what Peter Cochrane former CTO at BT has to say about how the
rollout of fibre to the home across the UK was shut down in 1990 for
political reasons.
Some links would have been useful, but the first thing I found was this:
How Thatcher killed the UK's superfast broadband before it even existed
https://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/how-the-uk-lost-the-broadband-race-in-1990-1224784
(Extremely annoying website with pop-ups &c.)
'Dr Cochrane knew that Britain's tired copper network was insufficient:
"In 1974 it was patently obvious that copper wire was unsuitable for
digital communication in any form, and it could not afford the capacity
we needed for the future."'
'"In 1979 I presented my results," he tells us, "and the conclusion was
to forget about copper and get into fibre.'
Both statements are long before the domestic Internet; digital
communication, especially fibre, was something that only companies would
be expected to need, not access to homes.
It indicated a lack of foresight; but, building Windsor Castle
underneath the Heathrow flight path was a lack of foresight.
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2022 13:52, Java Jive wrote:
On 09/08/2022 02:05, Owen Rees wrote:
Look up what Peter Cochrane former CTO at BT has to say about how the
rollout of fibre to the home across the UK was shut down in 1990 for
political reasons.
Some links would have been useful, but the first thing I found was this: >>>
How Thatcher killed the UK's superfast broadband before it even existed
https://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/how-the-uk-lost-the-broadband-race-in-1990-1224784
(Extremely annoying website with pop-ups &c.)
'Dr Cochrane knew that Britain's tired copper network was insufficient:
"In 1974 it was patently obvious that copper wire was unsuitable for
digital communication in any form, and it could not afford the capacity
we needed for the future."'
'"In 1979 I presented my results," he tells us, "and the conclusion was
to forget about copper and get into fibre.'
Both statements are long before the domestic Internet; digital
communication, especially fibre, was something that only companies would
be expected to need, not access to homes.
It indicated a lack of foresight; but, building Windsor Castle
underneath the Heathrow flight path was a lack of foresight.
If you read the report it says that the plan was to replace the local loop >with fibre. As for much electronics there are huge economies of scale. The >political error is partly in the competition dogma and partly in the >inability to understand the potential of fibre to the premises everywhere.
We could have had fibre because it would have been cheap at the whole UK >scale just for telephones.
The political error is partly in the competition dogma
This appears to be what they're doing now, as my own recent experience changing from copper to fibre simply involved an Openreach engineer
climbing the pole across the road and running a replacement fibre
"cable" across to and into my house.
"The NHS held a boat race against a Japanese crew and after Japan won
by a mile, a working party found the winners had 18 people rowing and
one steering while the NHS had 18 people steering and one rowing. So
the NHS spent £5million on consultants, forming a restructured crew
of 4 assistant steering managers; 3 deputy managers and a director of steering services. The rower was given an incentive to row harder.
They held another race and lost by 2 miles. So the NHS fired the
rower for poor performance, sold the boat and used the proceeds to
pay a bonus to the director of steering services."
On 11/08/2022 08:10, Roderick Stewart wrote:
This appears to be what they're doing now, as my own recent experience
changing from copper to fibre simply involved an Openreach engineer
climbing the pole across the road and running a replacement fibre
"cable" across to and into my house.
What proportion of homes are not fed from a pole?
My feed appears to come underground, down the drive. I doubt there is
any sort of duct. I have not noticed any BT manhole covers nearby.
On 11/08/2022 08:28, Bob Latham wrote:
"The NHS held a boat race against a Japanese crew and after Japan
won by a mile, a working party found the winners had 18 people
rowing and one steering while the NHS had 18 people steering and
one rowing. So the NHS spent £5million on consultants, forming a restructured crew of 4 assistant steering managers; 3 deputy
managers and a director of steering services. The rower was given
an incentive to row harder. They held another race and lost by 2
miles. So the NHS fired the rower for poor performance, sold the
boat and used the proceeds to pay a bonus to the director of
steering services."
Seems to show the advantage of "big", presumably "small" would mean
18 people in separate boats all rowing in competition.
ISTM what you want can be described more simply: HMG can (a) demand all
NS gas is supplied to the UK and (b) pay whatever price it wants, not
what the gas would fetch on the open market.
You might need to go further of course to take powers to force companies
to extract the gas rather than leave it underground until they can get
a better price. Enforcement of that could be fun.
I wonder what you think about the legal challenges to be expected under Article 1 of Protocol 1 EHRC. And - probably more important - the risk
of retaliatory action: e.g. if HMG is (it could be argued) confiscating
gas from US and Norwegian companies we might find it a tad harder to
keep on getting gas from the US and Norway.
At time, way back in the 80s I'm sure the intention was to draw people towards a more capitalist view and away from socialism, literally making
them capitalists.
NONE of the above are the ones making huge profits on the back of
"World Price". Some may well be in difficulty because of this.
So it seems you admit competition between companies to supply our energy
is a good thing and works to keep prices as low as possible. I thought socialists wanted such things nationalised.
On 06/08/2022 09:20, Brian Gaff wrote:
I see all sorts of messing about where bbc shows saving lives at sea,
which
seems to be made by a commercial company, but the other channels
increasingly show bbc things, some mainly repeats.
 So surely we have a kind of right to say to bbc, make your own
stuff even
if it does not fill all your schedules up? Don't sell off cheap your
things
to the commercial channels.
 It just seems that nobody would notice now if bbc started to carry
adverts.
A previous government instructed the BBC to contract out much
programme production, it is perhaps debatable whether this resulted in
an improvement in programme quality or any savings in costs but many
people seem to have got wealthy through it including at one time
retired staff who were paid to carry on making the same programmes
that they did as BBC employees.
Small units working in competition with each other will be lean and
mean and effective because they have to be to survive.
it wouldn't matter when you decided to do it, not everyone
would want it straight away,
The reason there was an uproar about the move to digital telephony
recently was because there were plans to force an end to analogue
telephony, except within the home, by 2025.
In other utility areas, consumers have been forced to change technology
over short periods, involving lots of technicians visiting homes. I'm thinking of the change from town gas to natural gas, and looking towards
the change from natural gas to hydrogen, for those for which heat pumps
are not a good solution.
On 11/08/2022 08:10, Roderick Stewart wrote:
This appears to be what they're doing now, as my own recent experience changing from copper to fibre simply involved an Openreach engineer climbing the pole across the road and running a replacement fibre
"cable" across to and into my house.
What proportion of homes are not fed from a pole?
My feed appears to come underground, down the drive. I doubt there is
any sort of duct. I have not noticed any BT manhole covers nearby.
In article <5a1562d321bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
NONE of the above are the ones making huge profits on the back of
"World Price". Some may well be in difficulty because of this.
So it seems you admit competition between companies to supply our
energy is a good thing and works to keep prices as low as
possible. I thought socialists wanted such things nationalised.
Your view of 'soclalists' is perhaps rather narrow. Reality is more complicated.
A genuine *competitive* market is fine in many situations. The
problem is that this is often systematically misused and then
hidden from scrutiny. All too often the 'free market' is neither.
And in sume situations the 'free market' isn't the solution to a
problem.
And something as vital as energy for heating, cooking, etc, it also
has to be regulated. Just as we regulate for safety, etc, in cars,
say.
So we get problems like the large gas storage facility operated for
strategic reasons was shut down just a few years ago. This could
store a lot of gas to keep the country going and hedge against
price fluctuations and supply problems. The companies didn't want
to keep it as it was a 'cost'. So Government allowed it to be taken
out of service.
It would now have been quite useful.
This examples that a 'free market' generally isn't 'free' but
focusses on the shareholder dividends, not the customers. Companies
also tend to 'flock' rather than compete as it is 'safer' from
their POV. So it also often isn't 'free' or really competitive,
either.
Government tends to be made up from politicians who go along with
the gag. In exchange for nice consultancies, free advisors,
directorships, and jobs after they leave Westminster. Regulatory
capture or blindness or powelessness duly infects.
So, rather than a "four legs good, two legs bad" view, it makes
sense to have a mix of social and market approaches to how things
are done. Under proper *scrutiny* and well as rules that are
enforced to ensure things are done in a way we benefit from as a
population, not simply be used as sources for wealth extraction.
In article <5a155db77cbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
At time, way back in the 80s I'm sure the intention was to draw
people towards a more capitalist view and away from socialism,
literally making them capitalists.
...for at least a few days before they sold on the Shares. :-)
On 11/08/2022 08:28, Bob Latham wrote:
Small units working in competition with each other will be lean and
mean and effective because they have to be to survive.
That may be true of hairdressers, but for other sorts of business,
economies of scale make a difference. Also, for businesses were
advantage is gained by technology advances, rather than by
efficient operation of established procedures, it can be extremely
wasteful, with everyone trying to re-invent the same wheel, and
you can have a situation where no one business can afford to take
on the R&D risk, on its own.
In article <td1eps$1v3qk$1@dont-email.me>,
Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
The political error is partly in the competition dogma
I don't know of any mechanism that makes a service better on price
and quality than competition.
Small units working in competition with each other will be lean and
mean and effective because they have to be to survive.
If you want to make a service expensive and poor make it big, the
bigger the better and then make it a monopoly, guaranteed to make it
awful.
I've seen a story attributed to Tony Benn. I don't know if it really
is his work but it hits the nail square on the head for a very well
known example. No amount of money poured in will ever fix it.
"The NHS held a boat race against a Japanese crew and after Japan won
by a mile, a working party found the winners had 18 people rowing and
one steering while the NHS had 18 people steering and one rowing. So
the NHS spent £5million on consultants, forming a restructured crew
of 4 assistant steering managers; 3 deputy managers and a director of steering services. The rower was given an incentive to row harder.
They held another race and lost by 2 miles. So the NHS fired the
rower for poor performance, sold the boat and used the proceeds to
pay a bonus to the director of steering services."
Soon it's out of control and if there is a religious connotation,
then anyone who tries to tackle the problem will get attacked by the
media and therefore no-one does and it gets worse and worse and I
give you the NHS.
In article <5a15b5f5bbnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
So we get problems like the large gas storage facility operated for
strategic reasons was shut down just a few years ago. This could
store a lot of gas to keep the country going and hedge against
price fluctuations and supply problems. The companies didn't want
to keep it as it was a 'cost'. So Government allowed it to be taken
out of service.
It would now have been quite useful.
I agree. Our current energy crisis is less to do with world events
and more to do with a succession of governments kicking the can down
the road and not making sure we have our own secure energy supply.
Yes, by all means burn the devil's gas from Russia but be well
prepared for that to suddenly go sour.
Add to that mix the utter
stupidity of the pointless net-zero farce and we have a crisis.
There's a video doing the rounds at the moment of Nick Clegg in 2010
saying it was no use going nuclear as this wouldn't provide power
until 2021. That didn't age well.
This examples that a 'free market' generally isn't 'free' but
focusses on the shareholder dividends, not the customers. Companies
also tend to 'flock' rather than compete as it is 'safer' from
their POV. So it also often isn't 'free' or really competitive,
either.
That's the problem isn't it, there isn't competition to hold them to
account. It's far from easy to see how to add the competition but
that's the core. Companies concentrate not on customer service to
keep their customers but on profit because the public can't buy a
better and or cheaper service from someone else.
That's why we get hose pipe bans because the service doesn't matter,
only profits do. So leaks don't get properly fixed and de-salination
plants sit idle.
Government tends to be made up from politicians who go along with
the gag. In exchange for nice consultancies, free advisors,
directorships, and jobs after they leave Westminster. Regulatory
capture or blindness or powelessness duly infects.
So, rather than a "four legs good, two legs bad" view, it makes
sense to have a mix of social and market approaches to how things
are done. Under proper *scrutiny* and well as rules that are
enforced to ensure things are done in a way we benefit from as a
population, not simply be used as sources for wealth extraction.
But I can't think of even one public body that isn't costly and
highly inefficient, perhaps you can.
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2022 13:52, Java Jive wrote:
On 09/08/2022 02:05, Owen Rees wrote:
Look up what Peter Cochrane former CTO at BT has to say about how the
rollout of fibre to the home across the UK was shut down in 1990 for
political reasons.
Some links would have been useful, but the first thing I found was this: >>>
How Thatcher killed the UK's superfast broadband before it even existed
https://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/how-the-uk-lost-the-broadband-race-in-1990-1224784
(Extremely annoying website with pop-ups &c.)
'Dr Cochrane knew that Britain's tired copper network was insufficient:
"In 1974 it was patently obvious that copper wire was unsuitable for
digital communication in any form, and it could not afford the capacity
we needed for the future."'
'"In 1979 I presented my results," he tells us, "and the conclusion was
to forget about copper and get into fibre.'
Both statements are long before the domestic Internet; digital
communication, especially fibre, was something that only companies would
be expected to need, not access to homes.
It indicated a lack of foresight; but, building Windsor Castle
underneath the Heathrow flight path was a lack of foresight.
If you read the report it says that the plan was to replace the local loop with fibre. As for much electronics there are huge economies of scale. The political error is partly in the competition dogma and partly in the inability to understand the potential of fibre to the premises everywhere.
We could have had fibre because it would have been cheap at the whole UK scale just for telephones.
On 11/08/2022 08:10, Roderick Stewart wrote:
it wouldn't matter when you decided to do it, not everyone
would want it straight away,
The reason there was an uproar about the move to digital telephony
recently was because there were plans to force an end to analogue
telephony, except within the home, by 2025.
On 11/08/2022 10:56, David Woolley wrote:
The reason there was an uproar about the move to digital telephony
recently was because there were plans to force an end to analogue
telephony, except within the home, by 2025.
In other utility areas, consumers have been forced to change technology
over short periods, involving lots of technicians visiting homes. I'm
thinking of the change from town gas to natural gas, and looking towards
the change from natural gas to hydrogen, for those for which heat pumps
are not a good solution.
Perhaps a better analogy was the rush to install cable TV and broadband
with dodgy contractors (usually Irish in white vans) digging up
pavements and roads then doing very poor quality patches to the surface afterwards.
They should have been carefully supervised but the companies just wanted
to increase their number of customers as quickly as possible and
councils did not have the resources. There was pressure from the
government to cable the country so they were not going to get involved.
It might be realistic to adopt a policy of not installing any *new*
copper cabling from a certain date. New installs and repairs could be
fibre, rather than forcing everyone to change if what they already have
is still working and they're happy with it.
You can't force an entire population to
accept the nuisance of changing to something they don't want and which
has no perceived advantage
By "local loop" do you mean from the exchange to the cabinet?
On 11/08/2022 00:25, Owen Rees wrote:
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2022 13:52, Java Jive wrote:
On 09/08/2022 02:05, Owen Rees wrote:
Look up what Peter Cochrane former CTO at BT has to say about how the >>>>> rollout of fibre to the home across the UK was shut down in 1990 for >>>>> political reasons.
Some links would have been useful, but the first thing I found was
this:
How Thatcher killed the UK's superfast broadband before it even existed >>>> https://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/how-the-uk-lost-the-broadband-race-in-1990-1224784
(Extremely annoying website with pop-ups &c.)
'Dr Cochrane knew that Britain's tired copper network was insufficient:
"In 1974 it was patently obvious that copper wire was unsuitable for
digital communication in any form, and it could not afford the capacity
we needed for the future."'
'"In 1979 I presented my results," he tells us, "and the conclusion was
to forget about copper and get into fibre.'
Both statements are long before the domestic Internet; digital
communication, especially fibre, was something that only companies would >>> be expected to need, not access to homes.
It indicated a lack of foresight; but, building Windsor Castle
underneath the Heathrow flight path was a lack of foresight.
If you read the report it says that the plan was to replace the local
loop
with fibre. As for much electronics there are huge economies of scale.
The
political error is partly in the competition dogma and partly in the
inability to understand the potential of fibre to the premises
everywhere.
We could have had fibre because it would have been cheap at the whole UK
scale just for telephones.
By "local loop" do you mean from the exchange to the cabinet? I don't
see the point of fibre for phone, especially as in 1974 a lot of the
phones used carbon granule transmitters and magnetic receivers.
It might be realistic to adopt a policy of not installing any
new copper cabling from a certain date.
IIRC Blair announced at the 1996 Party Conference that New Labour wd
revise the BT project. Dunno what happened to it. Possibly Browned off.
On 11/08/2022 14:55, Max Demian wrote:
By "local loop" do you mean from the exchange to the cabinet?
Local loop is generally understood to mean the copper pair from exchange (although from the 1980s, more likely to be a remote concentrator in an
old exchange building) to the analogue phone instrument.
The aim since the early 80s, or earlier has been to use passive fibre networks to the premises, so the aim is that there should be no power to
the cabinets to support driving a copper pair.
I think the concept in those days was that, by now, we would have video phones like in Kubrick's 2001.
On 11/08/2022 15:22, David Woolley wrote:
On 11/08/2022 14:55, Max Demian wrote:
By "local loop" do you mean from the exchange to the cabinet?
Local loop is generally understood to mean the copper pair from
exchange (although from the 1980s, more likely to be a remote
concentrator in an old exchange building) to the analogue phone
instrument.
The aim since the early 80s, or earlier has been to use passive fibre
networks to the premises, so the aim is that there should be no power
to the cabinets to support driving a copper pair.
I think the concept in those days was that, by now, we would have
video phones like in Kubrick's 2001.
And hey pop, my girlfriend's only three.
She's got her own video phone,
and she's taking LSD.
(John Sebastian)
Don't we have (kind of) videophones with smart phones?
On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 14:30:54 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:
It might be realistic to adopt a policy of not installing any *new*
copper cabling from a certain date. New installs and repairs could be
fibre, rather than forcing everyone to change if what they already have
is still working and they're happy with it.
What needs guarding against though is monopoly. My younger son moved into
a newbuild house last year and it only has FTTP and although he had a >contract with Plusnet he was not allowed to transfer it and had to take
out a BT contract.
Are there any places where one has a choice of ISP on FTTP?
And hey pop, my girlfriend's only three.
She's got her own video phone,
and she's taking LSD.
(John Sebastian)
It might be realistic to adopt a policy of not installing any
new copper cabling from a certain date.
That date is September 2023 for the entire country, there are already over 300 >exchanges where you can no longer order a new PSTN or ISDN line.
December 2025 is when all existing Openreach PSTN and ISDN telephone lines go >dead, with the first exchange Salisbury due to die this December.
On 11/08/2022 08:10, Roderick Stewart wrote:
You can't force an entire population to
accept the nuisance of changing to something they don't want and which
has no perceived advantage
Ha!
Smokeless zones
Electric cars
Bill
Ha!
Smokeless zones
Electric cars
Bill
On 11/08/2022 15:31, williamwright wrote:
Ha!
Smokeless zones
Electric cars
Bill
They are certainly trying to force battery cars on everyone but the
majority do not seem to want them.
I'm fed from a pole, but a lot of work had to be carried out, behind the scenes, to get the fibre onto the pole. It wasn't just runing a fibre
across the road to my house. I understand that our local (village)
telephone exchange isn't involved, there's just an underground connection
to a trunk cable somewhere.
On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 16:13 +0100 (BST), angus@magsys.co.uk (Angus
Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd) wrote:
It might be realistic to adopt a policy of not installing any
new copper cabling from a certain date.
That date is September 2023 for the entire country, there are already over 300
exchanges where you can no longer order a new PSTN or ISDN line.
So soon! I hadn't realised. Better get those old VDSL modem/routers on
Ebay while they're still worth something.
December 2025 is when all existing Openreach PSTN and ISDN telephone lines go
dead, with the first exchange Salisbury due to die this December.
Well, that won't bother me at all, as I'm full fibre now, which is
exactly what I wanted anyway, but I can understand why some would
object to being forced to accept something they don't want and don't
really understand, because they already have a telephone line that
works and they're not interested. "If it ain't broke, why fix it?"
I wonder how many million homes they have to convert by 2025, and if
anyone has calculated if it's feasible to do it in only 3 years? I
live in a quiet residential cul-de-sac and my fibre terminal is just
inside my front door and next to a power socket, but not everybody's installation will be as easy as that. They'll have old buildings,
remote villages, flats and tower blocks to deal with too, so good luck
with all of that.
Rod.
On 11/08/2022 20:33, MB wrote:
On 11/08/2022 15:31, williamwright wrote:
Ha!
Smokeless zones
Electric cars
Bill
They are certainly trying to force battery cars on everyone but the
majority do not seem to want them.
What people want and what they get is different.
On 11/08/2022 20:33, MB wrote:
On 11/08/2022 15:31, williamwright wrote:
Ha!
Smokeless zones
Electric cars
Bill
They are certainly trying to force battery cars on everyone but the
majority do not seem to want them.
What people want and what they get is different.
On 11/08/2022 00:25, Owen Rees wrote:
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2022 13:52, Java Jive wrote:
On 09/08/2022 02:05, Owen Rees wrote:
Look up what Peter Cochrane former CTO at BT has to say about how the >>>>> rollout of fibre to the home across the UK was shut down in 1990 for >>>>> political reasons.
Some links would have been useful, but the first thing I found was this: >>>>
How Thatcher killed the UK's superfast broadband before it even existed >>>> https://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/how-the-uk-lost-the-broadband-race-in-1990-1224784
(Extremely annoying website with pop-ups &c.)
'Dr Cochrane knew that Britain's tired copper network was insufficient:
"In 1974 it was patently obvious that copper wire was unsuitable for
digital communication in any form, and it could not afford the capacity
we needed for the future."'
'"In 1979 I presented my results," he tells us, "and the conclusion was
to forget about copper and get into fibre.'
Both statements are long before the domestic Internet; digital
communication, especially fibre, was something that only companies would >>> be expected to need, not access to homes.
It indicated a lack of foresight; but, building Windsor Castle
underneath the Heathrow flight path was a lack of foresight.
If you read the report it says that the plan was to replace the local loop >> with fibre. As for much electronics there are huge economies of scale. The >> political error is partly in the competition dogma and partly in the
inability to understand the potential of fibre to the premises everywhere. >>
We could have had fibre because it would have been cheap at the whole UK
scale just for telephones.
By "local loop" do you mean from the exchange to the cabinet? I don't
see the point of fibre for phone, especially as in 1974 a lot of the
phones used carbon granule transmitters and magnetic receivers.
December 2025 is when all existing Openreach PSTN and ISDN telephone lines go
dead, with the first exchange Salisbury due to die this December.
Well, that won't bother me at all, as I'm full fibre now, which is
exactly what I wanted anyway, but I can understand why some would
object to being forced to accept something they don't want and don't
really understand, because they already have a telephone line that
works and they're not interested. "If it ain't broke, why fix it?"
But if most other people ditch their phone lines, and the price goes up >because the fixed costs are spread among fewer customers, they would be
up in arms..
I wonder how many million homes they have to convert by 2025, and if
anyone has calculated if it's feasible to do it in only 3 years? I
live in a quiet residential cul-de-sac and my fibre terminal is just
inside my front door and next to a power socket, but not everybody's
installation will be as easy as that. They'll have old buildings,
remote villages, flats and tower blocks to deal with too, so good luck
with all of that.
They don't need to convert everyone to fibre, just to VOIP. So for those
of us on FTTC (or even ADSL) cease the POTS service but retain the data >service.
I wonder how many million homes they have to convert by 2025, and if
anyone has calculated if it's feasible to do it in only 3 years?
They don't need to convert everyone to fibre, just to VOIP. So for those
of us on FTTC (or even ADSL) cease the POTS service but retain the data service.
On 11/08/2022 23:04, David Wade wrote:
They don't need to convert everyone to fibre, just to VOIP. So for
those of us on FTTC (or even ADSL) cease the POTS service but retain
the data service.
Not everyone has a BT/Openreach connection. VirginMedia operate down two connections to my house, a twisted pair POTS service and a coax
broadband, (which gives me 100mb). That has the distinct advantage that
when I had a power cut last year I used the POTS phone to report it
while the rest of the house was without power. It allowed the engineers
to ring me back and tell me that it was a substation fault and that it
only affected my street, and I was given an estimate of how long to fix it.
On another occasion when the telephone was dead, I could use the
broadband to report it and arrange an engineer visit to diagnose and fix.
As the wires are already in place, I can't see any reason to replace
them with fibre, and I can't see any customer benefit to changing to
VOIP. Besides, if I want to use VIOP, I can use Skype from my laptop instead.
If you read the report it says that the plan was to replace the local
loop with fibre. As for much electronics there are huge economies of
scale. The political error is partly in the competition dogma and partly
in the inability to understand the potential of fibre to the premises everywhere.
In article <td1eps$1v3qk$1@dont-email.me>, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com>
wrote:
The political error is partly in the competition dogma
I don't know of any mechanism that makes a service better on price and quality than competition.
As the wires are already in place, I can't see any reason to
replace them with fibre, and I can't see any customer benefit to
changing to VOIP.
In article <5a162e05efbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <td1eps$1v3qk$1@dont-email.me>, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com>
wrote:
The political error is partly in the competition dogma
I don't know of any mechanism that makes a service better on
price and quality than competition.
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?
Religion presented as rational.
Maybe you should read Galbraith. :-) There are some more modern
views, but his wit and ability to skewer such faiths is impressive
as well as amusing - if your religion isn't being shown to be
absurd.
As the wires are already in place, I can't see any reason to replace
them with fibre, and I can't see any customer benefit to changing to
VOIP. Besides, if I want to use VIOP, I can use Skype from my laptop >instead.
On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 16:13 +0100 (BST), angus@magsys.co.uk (Angus
Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd) wrote:
It might be realistic to adopt a policy of not installing any
new copper cabling from a certain date.
That date is September 2023 for the entire country, there are already over 300
exchanges where you can no longer order a new PSTN or ISDN line.
So soon! I hadn't realised. Better get those old VDSL modem/routers on
Ebay while they're still worth something.
December 2025 is when all existing Openreach PSTN and ISDN telephone lines go
dead, with the first exchange Salisbury due to die this December.
On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 08:47:20 +0100, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
As the wires are already in place, I can't see any reason to replace
them with fibre, and I can't see any customer benefit to changing to
VOIP. Besides, if I want to use VIOP, I can use Skype from my laptop
instead.
Nothing lasts forever. Cables can become waterlogged and electrical connections can become corroded. Engineering systems only continue to
work because somebody maintains them. As more people move to fibre, if
part of a cable system fails it won't make much economic sense to
replace old technology with more old technology.
Rod.
Nothing lasts forever. Cables can become waterlogged and electrical connections can become corroded. Engineering systems only continue to
work because somebody maintains them. As more people move to fibre, if
part of a cable system fails it won't make much economic sense to
replace old technology with more old technology.
On 11/08/2022 19:08, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 16:13 +0100 (BST), angus@magsys.co.uk (Angus
Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd) wrote:
It might be realistic to adopt a policy of not installing any
new copper cabling from a certain date.
That date is September 2023 for the entire country, there are already over 300
exchanges where you can no longer order a new PSTN or ISDN line.
So soon! I hadn't realised. Better get those old VDSL modem/routers on
Ebay while they're still worth something.
December 2025 is when all existing Openreach PSTN and ISDN telephone lines go
dead, with the first exchange Salisbury due to die this December.
So who is going to provide the new routers with a phone socket? My
telecom provider (BT) or my ISP (PlusNet for ADSL2+)? What will it plug
into? Directly into the phone socket on the wall?
On 12/08/2022 12:31, Roderick Stewart wrote:
Nothing lasts forever. Cables can become waterlogged and electrical
connections can become corroded. Engineering systems only continue to
work because somebody maintains them. As more people move to fibre, if
part of a cable system fails it won't make much economic sense to
replace old technology with more old technology.
But if it has worked OK for fifty years and quite likely another fifty
if replaced with new cable .....
The copper hold outs would soon change their minds if BT/OR was to charge them the true economic cost of maintaining the legacy copper network once everyone else has switched to fibre.
On 12/08/2022 13:32, Tweed wrote:
The copper hold outs would soon change their minds if BT/OR was to charge
them the true economic cost of maintaining the legacy copper network once
everyone else has switched to fibre.
What are the maintenance costs when it is working, I don't think they
around polishing the copper regularly.
There costs when there is a fault but there are with fibre.
In article <5a1638a417noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <5a162e05efbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <td1eps$1v3qk$1@dont-email.me>, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> >>> wrote:
The political error is partly in the competition dogma
I don't know of any mechanism that makes a service better on
price and quality than competition.
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?
Oh I thought you were going to debate in a mature way without
twisting what people say or attacks, leopards and spots.
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.
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.
I think the reason for both is political pressure from the
liberal/left elite media. The brainwashed 'water melons' (green on
the outside, red on the inside) have painted energy as a great
poluting evil and the people must be starved of it for the good of
the planet. All fine if you're a wealthy champagne socialist.
The government was largely frightened to address energy because of
you're lot, the CO2 zealots.
Add Net-zero insanity and surprise surprise we have a crisis. A
crisis where ordinary people are going to be cold or hungry and
probably in debt in very large numbers.
Anyone who thinks 1% will change the climate or the weather, is
clearly unhinged and that's true even if the rest of world wasn't
increasing their CO2 output.
So well done CO2 zealots, you've immiserated millions of people for absolutely no benefit. I hope you're so proud.
That's religion. A religion that cannot be questioned, certainly not
on the BBC.
Religion presented as rational.
or even more bizarre that I support a religion.
Maybe you should read Galbraith. :-) There are some more modern
views, but his wit and ability to skewer such faiths is impressive
as well as amusing - if your religion isn't being shown to be
absurd.
This from the one of the most religious people I know of. You are a
high priest of the AGW, the most dangerous stupid religion of the
era.
Let me give you a quote from a well known professor:
"What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is
how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting
propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special
interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from
human industry was a dangerous planet destroying toxin. It will be
remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world
- that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a
deadly poison."
That's rationality and the truth.
Nothing lasts forever. Cables can become waterlogged and electrical connections can become corroded. Engineering systems only continue to
work because somebody maintains them. As more people move to fibre, if
part of a cable system fails it won't make much economic sense to
replace old technology with more old technology.
So who is going to provide the new routers with a phone socket?
My telecom provider (BT) or my ISP (PlusNet for ADSL2+)?
So who is going to provide the new routers with a phone socket? My
telecom provider (BT) or my ISP (PlusNet for ADSL2+)? What will it plug into? Directly into the phone socket on the wall?
On 12/08/2022 12:31, Roderick Stewart wrote:
Nothing lasts forever. Cables can become waterlogged and electrical
connections can become corroded. Engineering systems only continue to
work because somebody maintains them. As more people move to fibre, if
part of a cable system fails it won't make much economic sense to
replace old technology with more old technology.
They also erode by theft as scrap copper is rather valuable compared
with scrap mono-mode fibre, which is basically just a little glass when melted down.
presumably, a DECT to analogue station adaptor, in wall wart format.
There are no poles anywhere near here.
What are the maintenance costs when it is working, I don't think
they around polishing the copper regularly.
My younger son moved into
a newbuild house last year and it only has FTTP and although he had a contract with Plusnet he was not allowed to transfer it and had to take
out a BT contract.
Are there any places where one has a choice of ISP on FTTP?
On 12/08/2022 13:32, Tweed wrote:
The copper hold outs would soon change their minds if BT/OR was to charge
them the true economic cost of maintaining the legacy copper network once
everyone else has switched to fibre.
What are the maintenance costs when it is working, I don't think they
around polishing the copper regularly.
There costs when there is a fault but there are with fibre.
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
So who is going to provide the new routers with a phone socket? My
telecom provider (BT) or my ISP (PlusNet for ADSL2+)? What will it plug
into? Directly into the phone socket on the wall?
If you have a voice only line then I expect whoever you pay your bill to
will provide a little box that is effectively a combined router and
analogue telephone adapter (ATA) with possibly an integrated DECT base station.
If you have a voice line with Internet service it’s going to have to be the ISP who is responsible for providing the data traffic for a phone service.
If you pay them for a voice service they are likely to provide you with a suitable router.
On 12/08/2022 12:31, Roderick Stewart wrote:
Nothing lasts forever. Cables can become waterlogged and electrical
connections can become corroded. Engineering systems only continue to
work because somebody maintains them. As more people move to fibre, if
part of a cable system fails it won't make much economic sense to
replace old technology with more old technology.
But if it has worked OK for fifty years and quite likely another fifty
if replaced with new cable .....
Angus Robertson wrote:
Roderick Stewart wrote:
It might be realistic to adopt a policy of not installing any
new copper cabling from a certain date.
That date is September 2023 for the entire country
So soon! I hadn't realised. Better get those old VDSL modem/routers on
Ebay while they're still worth something.
So who is going to provide the new routers with a phone socket?
My telecom provider (BT) or my ISP (PlusNet for ADSL2+)?
Your ISP will supply a new router.
But it probably won't be ADSL since that service will disappear at the same time the PSTN exchanges close down since that is where it's delivered from.
You are presumably too far from a cabinet to get FTTC or on an exchange only line without FTTC. BT might offer you full fibre, or put in a new cabinet somewhere so you get FTTC.
Me, I’d just take Internet service and route my voice calls over Sipgate
and provide my own ATA. Sipgate for a simple service charge £0/month and >about 2p/minute for landline destined calls. The likes of Zen and BT try to >charge around £7/month, albeit with some level of bundled calls.
The Other John wrote:
My younger son moved into
a newbuild house last year and it only has FTTP and although he had a
contract with Plusnet he was not allowed to transfer it and had to take
out a BT contract.
That would be because at the time Plusnet didn't sell an FTTP product, they do
as of a couple of weeks ago.
Are there any places where one has a choice of ISP on FTTP?
Loads ... anywhere that openreach FTTP is available, you have a choice of all ISPs who provide products on openreach FTTP, that list will be smaller than the
list of ISPs who provide ADSL/VDSL products.
On 12/08/2022 13:42, Tweed wrote:
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
So who is going to provide the new routers with a phone socket? My
telecom provider (BT) or my ISP (PlusNet for ADSL2+)? What will it plug
into? Directly into the phone socket on the wall?
If you have a voice only line then I expect whoever you pay your bill to
will provide a little box that is effectively a combined router and
analogue telephone adapter (ATA) with possibly an integrated DECT base
station.
If you have a voice line with Internet service it’s going to have to be the
ISP who is responsible for providing the data traffic for a phone service. >> If you pay them for a voice service they are likely to provide you with a
suitable router.
My voice service is from BT; my ADSL2+ is PlusNet.
On 12/08/2022 14:11, Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd wrote:
So who is going to provide the new routers with a phone socket?
My telecom provider (BT) or my ISP (PlusNet for ADSL2+)?
Your ISP will supply a new router.
Will they care? I don't get my voice service from them.
But it probably won't be ADSL since that service will disappear at the same >> time the PSTN exchanges close down since that is where it's delivered from. >>
You are presumably too far from a cabinet to get FTTC or on an exchange only >> line without FTTC. BT might offer you full fibre, or put in a new cabinet >> somewhere so you get FTTC.
I could have FTTC, but haven't. FTTP could be difficult as I live in a
block of flats.
On 12/08/2022 12:41, Max Demian wrote:
So who is going to provide the new routers with a phone socket? My
telecom provider (BT) or my ISP (PlusNet for ADSL2+)? What will it
plug into? Directly into the phone socket on the wall?
I'm pretty sure that a little research will given definitive answers,
because this is something already in progress.
However, regarding the
existing sockets, I believe the master socket is no longer valid, and
the internal extension wiring is the consumer's responsibility, and will
not be connected to the VoIP system, by the installer, but could be
connected if the VoIP adapter has a socket. It would be up to the
consumer to source suitable cables, probably male to male. This assumes
you didn't hold out from before the separation of consumer and BT wiring.
I believe the BT standard offering is DECT based, with a socket as well,
and one for a standby power supply, but it is a little while since I
last looked into this.
Actually, from a quick look at
<https://www.bt.com/broadband/digital-voice> it isn't actually clear
that the hub has a phone socket. What BT seem to do is offer what is, presumably, a DECT to analogue station adaptor, in wall wart format.
They do talk about a smart hub 2, which does have a phone socket but its
note clear to me how this will be handled when there was no OpenReach broadband, or BT are not the broadband retailer.
The instructions for the adaptor say:
"*Making emergency calls* You won’t be able to call 999 (or any other numbers) from phones connected to your hub or Digital Voice Adapter if there’s a power cut, or a problem with your broadband. So make sure you’ve got another way to call for help in an emergency."
Your ISP will supply a new router.
Will they care? I don't get my voice service from them.
What installer? Don't companies just send you stuff to connect? And the master socket is BT's; all you can do is plug stuff in or, perhaps,
unscrew the front part to reveal the *master* master socket inside.
What's a VoIP adapter? Is it a router with a phone connection or just a digital to analogue adapter?
That (smart hub 2) sounds like stuff you have if BT is your ISP (which it isn't).
PlusNet's website doesn't say anything about the digital switchover.
PlusNet's website doesn't say anything about the digital switchover.
On 12/08/2022 17:51, Max Demian wrote:
PlusNet's website doesn't say anything about the digital switchover.
There is quite a lot on their community forums, but a lack of official answers. There is some speculation that, as they use similar hardware
to BT retail broadband, being, I understand, a branding of BT, that they will do the same as BT. If you have a recent hub, look for a phone
socket, possibly taped over, on the back.
My voice service is from BT; my ADSL2+ is PlusNet.
That will have to change one day. You will loose both at some point, though >when that happens could be a number of years yet.
I believe you will lose your voice service completely if you don't take action and are currently using an analogue service over the same copper
pair.
I think BT will only provide a service if you either take your broadband
from BT retail or have no broadband service at all on the line that
supports your analogue phone.
On 12/08/2022 18:11, David Woolley wrote:
I believe you will lose your voice service completely if you don't take
action and are currently using an analogue service over the same copper
pair.
I think BT will only provide a service if you either take your broadband
from BT retail or have no broadband service at all on the line that
supports your analogue phone.
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.
On 11/08/2022 23:04, David Wade wrote:
They don't need to convert everyone to fibre, just to VOIP. So for
those of us on FTTC (or even ADSL) cease the POTS service but retain
the data service.
Not everyone has a BT/Openreach connection. VirginMedia operate down two connections to my house, a twisted pair POTS service and a coax
broadband, (which gives me 100mb). That has the distinct advantage that
when I had a power cut last year I used the POTS phone to report it
while the rest of the house was without power. It allowed the engineers
to ring me back and tell me that it was a substation fault and that it
only affected my street, and I was given an estimate of how long to fix it.
On another occasion when the telephone was dead, I could use the
broadband to report it and arrange an engineer visit to diagnose and fix.
As the wires are already in place, I can't see any reason to replace
them with fibre, and I can't see any customer benefit to changing to
VOIP. Besides, if I want to use VIOP, I can use Skype from my laptop instead.
Jim
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.
On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 23:04:09 +0100, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid>
wrote:
But if most other people ditch their phone lines, and the price goes up
because the fixed costs are spread among fewer customers, they would be
up in arms..
If you mean the price of copper cable installations goes up, then the
natural thing to do is migrate to fibre. I would think most people
would willingly do this if fibre costs less (even if they don't know
or don't care how much faster their internet sevice sould be).
My change to fibre actually has resulted in a slightly lower monthly
bill, as the internet service costs the same as before, and the line
rental of about £15 has been replaced with a £7 charge for VOIP phone.
In my case, I've been with Zen for many years and have the advantage
of their fixed price for life, and I ordered the upgrade to fibre just
before they discontinued this, so effectively I stayed on the same
contract, which is why the internet stayed at the same price for me.
However, even without this, I think the price would have been about
the same or only slightly higher. Most advertised prices for fibre and
copper seem to be comparable now. If fibre cost an arm and a leg there
would be good reason to object, but it doesn't.
I wonder how many million homes they have to convert by 2025, and if
anyone has calculated if it's feasible to do it in only 3 years? I
live in a quiet residential cul-de-sac and my fibre terminal is just
inside my front door and next to a power socket, but not everybody's
installation will be as easy as that. They'll have old buildings,
remote villages, flats and tower blocks to deal with too, so good luck
with all of that.
They don't need to convert everyone to fibre, just to VOIP. So for those
of us on FTTC (or even ADSL) cease the POTS service but retain the data
service.
Point taken. I hadn't realised it was only the conversion to VOIP that
had a target date. That looks much more feasible, though of course how
well VOIP works will depend on the speed and integrity of the internet connection, and I suppose the addition of VOIP to an existing
connection would require a new router or an additional box to decode
it, with battery backup where necessary.
The more elegant solution is
to upgrade everything in one step, which is what I did, and it has
resulted in a neater installation that works better than before. In
the fullness of time there will only be fibre, that's inevitable, but
maybe if it were presented and advertised the right way at a
reasonable price, more people would be persuaded to adopt it sooner.
Rod.
On Thu, 11 Aug 2022 23:04:09 +0100, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid>
wrote:
December 2025 is when all existing Openreach PSTN and ISDN telephone lines go
dead, with the first exchange Salisbury due to die this December.
Well, that won't bother me at all, as I'm full fibre now, which is
exactly what I wanted anyway, but I can understand why some would
object to being forced to accept something they don't want and don't
really understand, because they already have a telephone line that
works and they're not interested. "If it ain't broke, why fix it?"
But if most other people ditch their phone lines, and the price goes up
because the fixed costs are spread among fewer customers, they would be
up in arms..
If you mean the price of copper cable installations goes up, then the
natural thing to do is migrate to fibre. I would think most people
would willingly do this if fibre costs less (even if they don't know
or don't care how much faster their internet sevice sould be). >
My change to fibre actually has resulted in a slightly lower monthly
bill, as the internet service costs the same as before, and the line
rental of about £15 has been replaced with a £7 charge for VOIP phone.
In my case, I've been with Zen for many years and have the advantage
of their fixed price for life, and I ordered the upgrade to fibre just
before they discontinued this, so effectively I stayed on the same
contract, which is why the internet stayed at the same price for me.
However, even without this, I think the price would have been about
the same or only slightly higher. Most advertised prices for fibre and
copper seem to be comparable now. If fibre cost an arm and a leg there
would be good reason to object, but it doesn't.
I wonder how many million homes they have to convert by 2025, and if
anyone has calculated if it's feasible to do it in only 3 years? I
live in a quiet residential cul-de-sac and my fibre terminal is just
inside my front door and next to a power socket, but not everybody's
installation will be as easy as that. They'll have old buildings,
remote villages, flats and tower blocks to deal with too, so good luck
with all of that.
They don't need to convert everyone to fibre, just to VOIP. So for those
of us on FTTC (or even ADSL) cease the POTS service but retain the data
service.
Point taken. I hadn't realised it was only the conversion to VOIP that
had a target date. That looks much more feasible, though of course how
well VOIP works will depend on the speed and integrity of the internet connection, and I suppose the addition of VOIP to an existing
connection would require a new router or an additional box to decode
it, with battery backup where necessary. The more elegant solution is
to upgrade everything in one step, which is what I did, and it has
resulted in a neater installation that works better than before. In
the fullness of time there will only be fibre, that's inevitable, but
maybe if it were presented and advertised the right way at a
reasonable price, more people would be persuaded to adopt it sooner.
Rod.
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.
As the wires are already in place, I can't see any reason to
replace them with fibre, and I can't see any customer benefit to
changing to VOIP.
Those wires are 50 to 100 years old, connected to telephone exchanges designed
50 years ago and for which spare parts are no longer available and 100,000 aging street cabinets. Even the early FTTC street cabinets installed almost 20
years ago are reaching end of life.
Those exchanges also occupy 5,000 buildings around the country that cost a lot
to maintain and run, and have already been replaced by a few hundred newer buildings.
Angus
Nevertheless VM plan to switch you over by end-2025.
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 12/08/2022 14:11, Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd wrote:
So who is going to provide the new routers with a phone socket?
My telecom provider (BT) or my ISP (PlusNet for ADSL2+)?
Your ISP will supply a new router.
Will they care? I don't get my voice service from them.
But it probably won't be ADSL since that service will disappear at the same >>> time the PSTN exchanges close down since that is where it's delivered from. >>>
You are presumably too far from a cabinet to get FTTC or on an exchange only
line without FTTC. BT might offer you full fibre, or put in a new cabinet >>> somewhere so you get FTTC.
I could have FTTC, but haven't. FTTP could be difficult as I live in a
block of flats.
If they can get a copper wire into your flat there will be a way of getting
a fibre in.
On 12/08/2022 12:31, Roderick Stewart wrote:
Nothing lasts forever. Cables can become waterlogged and electrical
connections can become corroded. Engineering systems only continue to
work because somebody maintains them. As more people move to fibre, if
part of a cable system fails it won't make much economic sense to
replace old technology with more old technology.
But if it has worked OK for fifty years and quite likely another fifty
if replaced with new cable .....
On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 12:42:35 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Me, I’d just take Internet service and route my voice calls over Sipgate >> and provide my own ATA. Sipgate for a simple service charge £0/month and
about 2p/minute for landline destined calls. The likes of Zen and BT try to >> charge around £7/month, albeit with some level of bundled calls.
Zen's £7 per month is cheaper than the £15 per month line rental that
it replaces. Also, the modem/router that they provided (free) includes
a phone socket, into which I plugged my existing phone without
configuring anything, and it just works as before.
Rod.
On 12/08/2022 10:31, Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd wrote:
As the wires are already in place, I can't see any reason to replace
them with fibre, and I can't see any customer benefit to changing to
VOIP.
Those wires are 50 to 100 years old, connected to telephone exchanges designed 50 years ago and for which spare parts are no longer available
and 100,000 aging street cabinets. Even the early FTTC street cabinets installed almost 20 years ago are reaching end of life.
Those exchanges also occupy 5,000 buildings around the country that
cost a lot to maintain and run, and have already been replaced by a few hundred newer buildings.
Angus
You didn't read what I said.
My VIRGINMEDIA cables are about 20 years old. The VM cabinet at the end
of my road is of similar vintage, the main Headend is perhaps 5 years
older.
20 years is not a long time for a street cabinet to be in use.
Jim
On 12/08/2022 17:34, Max Demian wrote:
Your ISP will supply a new router.
Will they care? I don't get my voice service from them.
I believe you will lose your voice service completely if you don't take action and are currently using an analogue service over the same copper
pair.
I think BT will only provide a service if you either take your broadband
from BT retail or have no broadband service at all on the line that
supports your analogue phone.
Neither PlusNet nor BT have anything about the digital phone switchover
on their websites, and the Openreach one not much detail.
That's why we get hose pipe bans because the service doesn't matter,
only profits do. So leaks don't get properly fixed and de-salination
plants sit idle.
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.
That could be tackled if Ofwat was given sufficient teeth.
On 12/08/2022 17:41, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Fri, 12 Aug 2022 12:42:35 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Me, I’d just take Internet service and route my voice calls over Sipgate >>> and provide my own ATA. Sipgate for a simple service charge £0/month and >>> about 2p/minute for landline destined calls. The likes of Zen and BT try to >>> charge around £7/month, albeit with some level of bundled calls.
Zen's £7 per month is cheaper than the £15 per month line rental that
it replaces. Also, the modem/router that they provided (free) includes
a phone socket, into which I plugged my existing phone without
configuring anything, and it just works as before.
but could you ditch that and save £7/month? If so many will...
Rod.
Dave
On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 08:20:47 +0100, 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.
What is the problem with the provision of a mains supply?
Is it 1). The availability of a mains socket close to where the fibre terminal is installed, because it replaces a passive connector box
that didn't need one?
Or 2). The continued function of the equipment in a power cut?
1). only requires cabling, which in many cases will already be
present. If the fibre service replaces ADSL or VDSL, then there must
already be a router, which must be powered somehow. More than likely
the phone is a cordless one that will have to be powered too, so its dependency on a new powered terminal doesn't introduce a new problem.
2). is easily catered for with a UPS. Search for "UPS" or
"Uninterruptible Power supply" on Amazon to see the variety already available. You can get big ones to power computers, or little low
voltage ones that will just power the router and optical terminal so
you can still use your laptop or tablet till the power is restored.
A problem is only a problem until it's solved.
Rod.
I don't mind changing to FTTC as I expect it won't
cost any more. I need to do it in such a way that I can keep my PlusNet
email address and webspace, which is a legacy benefit.
One of the basic problems is that the new arrangements don't really provide for supporting 999 calls during a power cut. Or, indeed, calls to you electricity supplier! They basically take for granted the people will have
a 'mobile' as well. Which not everyone has in reality.
20 years is not a long time for a street cabinet to be in use.
It is when it's full of electronics
On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 12:36:42 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:
In article <ipvefh1h26ujne3rdtsmd1m4028ji2ntgo@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 08:20:47 +0100, 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.
What is the problem with the provision of a mains supply?
Is it 1). The availability of a mains socket close to where the fibre
terminal is installed, because it replaces a passive connector box
that didn't need one?
Or 2). The continued function of the equipment in a power cut?
1). only requires cabling, which in many cases will already be
present. If the fibre service replaces ADSL or VDSL, then there must
already be a router, which must be powered somehow. More than likely
the phone is a cordless one that will have to be powered too, so its
dependency on a new powered terminal doesn't introduce a new problem.
2). is easily catered for with a UPS. Search for "UPS" or
"Uninterruptible Power supply" on Amazon to see the variety already
available. You can get big ones to power computers, or little low
voltage ones that will just power the router and optical terminal so
you can still use your laptop or tablet till the power is restored.
A problem is only a problem until it's solved.
Rod.
We have been without power for about 14 hours- my laptop mwouldn't have >kept going that long - but some people were without power for 4 or 5 days >earlier this year. A UPS wouldn't be much use for that length of time.
If power cuts are that much of a problem where you live, you might
want to consider bigger batteries, or even a generator. Take
precautions appropriate to your circumstances.
I can only recall two power cuts of a few hours each in the thirty
years or so that I've lived here, so I haven't bothered. If they'd
been more frequent I might have some sort of backup system in place by
now, but if they lasted for days, I suspect that loss of internet
might be the least of my worries.
Rod.
On 13/08/2022 12:42, Indy Jess John wrote:
That could be tackled if Ofwat was given sufficient teeth.
The people who adhere to the market is best doctrine also tend to
belong to the small government one, and are therefore against
regulation, as well as public ownership.
In article <ipvefh1h26ujne3rdtsmd1m4028ji2ntgo@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 08:20:47 +0100, 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.
What is the problem with the provision of a mains supply?
Is it 1). The availability of a mains socket close to where the fibre
terminal is installed, because it replaces a passive connector box
that didn't need one?
Or 2). The continued function of the equipment in a power cut?
1). only requires cabling, which in many cases will already be
present. If the fibre service replaces ADSL or VDSL, then there must
already be a router, which must be powered somehow. More than likely
the phone is a cordless one that will have to be powered too, so its
dependency on a new powered terminal doesn't introduce a new problem.
2). is easily catered for with a UPS. Search for "UPS" or
"Uninterruptible Power supply" on Amazon to see the variety already
available. You can get big ones to power computers, or little low
voltage ones that will just power the router and optical terminal so
you can still use your laptop or tablet till the power is restored.
A problem is only a problem until it's solved.
Rod.
We have been without power for about 14 hours- my laptop mwouldn't have
kept going that long - but some people were without power for 4 or 5 days >earlier this year. A UPS wouldn't be much use for that length of time.
We have been without power for about 14 hours- my laptop mwouldn't have
kept going that long - but some people were without power for 4 or 5 days earlier this year. A UPS wouldn't be much use for that length of time.
If the volume of water lost through leaks is priced at domestic water
meter rates and added to the company accounts as notional income, the notional profits become taxable. This leaves the accountants with the
simple decision of whether to invest in fixing leaks or to pay tax on
the consequences of inaction. The worst offenders would be the hardest
hit, which makes it an ideal solution.
Of course the big problem, where the exchange currently provides the
power, is that the people most likely to need to call 999 are often
those who have lost the ability to cope with new technology, whether or
not they have a formal dementia diagnosis.
On 13/08/2022 12:36, charles wrote:
We have been without power for about 14 hours- my laptop mwouldn't have kept going that long - but some people were without power for 4 or 5 days earlier this year. A UPS wouldn't be much use for that length of time.
Isn't that what cars are for (unless you are unlucky to have a battery
one). :-)
On 13/08/2022 12:42, Indy Jess John wrote:
If the volume of water lost through leaks is priced at domestic water
meter rates and added to the company accounts as notional income, the
notional profits become taxable. This leaves the accountants with the
simple decision of whether to invest in fixing leaks or to pay tax on
the consequences of inaction. The worst offenders would be the hardest
hit, which makes it an ideal solution.
From everything that I have read they are trying to clear the backlog
but most because of the days when the water industry was state owned and there was little investment. Been much more investment since
privatisation.
In article <td8dmh$2rnre$1@dont-email.me>,
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 13/08/2022 12:36, charles wrote:
We have been without power for about 14 hours- my laptop mwouldn't have
kept going that long - but some people were without power for 4 or 5 days >>> earlier this year. A UPS wouldn't be much use for that length of time.
Isn't that what cars are for (unless you are unlucky to have a battery
one). :-)
A car could help, if you had enough petrol. I do have a 12v inverter if I really neded it.
On 13/08/2022 12:15, Max Demian wrote:
Neither PlusNet nor BT have anything about the digital phone
switchover on their websites, and the Openreach one not much detail.
BT do, although the fact that it will not be optional is maybe a little concealed: <https://www.bt.com/broadband/digital-voice>. That page does say, pretty explicitly: "That outdated network will be switched off for
all phone providers by 2025."
However, coming back closer to the original subject, it is a
characteristic of most private enterprises that they don't provide much technical detail, especially if it reveals things that inconvenience the customer. Everything has to be in marketing terms, which must always be positive towards their product.
I suppose I could get PlusNet to provide my voice service, and let them sort it
out somehow.
This is true of cable TV (i.e. Virgin) with cabinets with their doors
blowing in the wind and black cables in green tubing laid on the ground,
but CityFibre have been wiring up my neighbourhood quite professionally
with metal covers near each house ready to be connected if the residents wish; though some might not want to dig up their nice block paving to connect.
I wonder how many million homes they have to convert by 2025, and if
anyone has calculated if it's feasible to do it in only 3 years? I
live in a quiet residential cul-de-sac and my fibre terminal is just
inside my front door and next to a power socket, but not everybody's installation will be as easy as that. They'll have old buildings,
remote villages, flats and tower blocks to deal with too, so good luck
with all of that.
Rod.
In article <64c13ac2-bbf7-7a04-4940-fd741bd0d385@outlook.com>, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
Nevertheless VM plan to switch you over by end-2025.
Barry Fox has been writing - e.g. in the current Hi-Fi News - about the problems he is getting with Virgin and the way they are doing this changeover. Reality seems to differ from what has been promised.
One of the basic problems is that the new arrangements don't really provide for supporting 999 calls during a power cut. Or, indeed, calls to you electricity supplier! They basically take for granted the people will have
a 'mobile' as well. Which not everyone has in reality.
Apparently they are meant to check this *and* provide you with either a
local power for the router+phone or some other way the user can call for help. But in practice they may simply 'not ask and not know'.
On 11/08/2022 19:08, Roderick Stewart wrote:
I wonder how many million homes they have to convert by 2025, and if
anyone has calculated if it's feasible to do it in only 3 years? I
live in a quiet residential cul-de-sac and my fibre terminal is just
inside my front door and next to a power socket, but not everybody's
installation will be as easy as that. They'll have old buildings,
remote villages, flats and tower blocks to deal with too, so good luck
with all of that.
Rod.
Just look how long it's taken for smart meters.
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.
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.
The government was largely frightened to address energy because of
you're lot, the CO2 zealots.
Add Net-zero insanity and surprise surprise we have a crisis. A crisis
where ordinary people are going to be cold or hungry and probably in
debt in very large numbers.
Maybe you should read Galbraith. :-) There are some more modern views,
but his wit and ability to skewer such faiths is impressive as well as amusing - if your religion isn't being shown to be absurd.
This from the one of the most religious people I know of. You are a high priest of the AGW, the most dangerous stupid religion of the era.
Let me give you a quote from a well known professor:
"What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda,
actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince
nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a
dangerous planet destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest
mass delusion in the history of the world - that CO2, the life of
plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison."
That's rationality and the truth.
On 11/08/2022 15:02, Max Demian wrote:
This is true of cable TV (i.e. Virgin) with cabinets with their doors
blowing in the wind and black cables in green tubing laid on the ground,
but CityFibre have been wiring up my neighbourhood quite professionally
with metal covers near each house ready to be connected if the residents
wish; though some might not want to dig up their nice block paving to
connect.
City Fibre have put fibre down the street in which I live and are
offering their service via their selected partners. They have not
included any accesses plates to each house. There is also Virgin fibre >running down the street.
They are optional. In Spain nearly every one has had a Smart Meter since 2018. They are all from the same supplier. They are mandatory. Similar
in Italy.
This roll out will be the same sort of excercise. You can say no, but
end up with no land line.
Perhaps we need a referendum...
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.
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.
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.
Add Net-zero insanity and surprise surprise we have a crisis. A crisis where ordinary people are going to be cold or hungry and probably in
debt in very large numbers.
Just think how much worse a situation we'd be in now if we hadn't
installed so many alternative means of generating electricity, and how
the problems we face now might have been smaller if politicians over so
many governments hadn't kowtowed to climate denialists and the nuclear
lobby, thus wasting decades in prevarication and doing nothing and
£billions on white elephant technology for which this country has no indigenous sources of fuel.
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.
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
It is technically trivial. Box stuffed full of lithium batteries float charged from mains. Pass through to keep router/ONT operating when mains
on. When mains fails power to equipment stops. Big ligh ,on box flashes
with legend “press here to make emergency call and wait 30 seconds†press button, equipment boots. Put a bit of effort into making equipment boot faster than it does now. Educate user on use. Sell for £20 wholesale.
That is a solution if the stalwart land line user is offered a mobile totally paid for by the landline provider.
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.
The mobile phone solution tends to assume someone from the mobile phone generation, in fair health, and not trapped by an emergency.
That is a solution if the stalwart land line user is offered a mobile totally paid for by the landline provider.
City Fibre are currently installing fibre in the city where I live. My
street was done several months ago. When I enquired about
availability, giving my address, they said that I live in a "private
road". This does not inspire me with confidence in their service.
wait 30 seconds
Educate user on use
Watching young people on TV, many seem closer to dementia than many
older people. They can rarer speak properly, they might be able to get
onto various online sites but havd very limited technical knowledge.
Virgin cable is available in the surrounding streets, but not ours,
because apparently our unadopted road belongs to us and not the
council, so Virgin would need signed permission from every household
(a "wayleave") to install their trunking along the road if anyone
wanted their service, and they haven't bothered to organise this.
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.
The mobile phone solution tends to assume someone from the mobile phone >generation, in fair health, and not trapped by an emergency.
Neither PlusNet nor BT have anything about the digital phone
switchover on their websites, and the Openreach one not much detail.
BT do, although the fact that it will not be optional is maybe a little
concealed: <https://www.bt.com/broadband/digital-voice>. That page does
say, pretty explicitly: "That outdated network will be switched off for
all phone providers by 2025."
That page seems to assume both voice and broadband are from BT, with
"You simply plug your phone into a Smart Hub..."
On 14/08/2022 10:10, Tweed wrote:
It is technically trivial. Box stuffed full of lithium batteries float
charged from mains. Pass through to keep router/ONT operating when mains
on. When mains fails power to equipment stops. Big ligh ,on box flashes
with legend “press here to make emergency call and wait 30 seconds†press
button, equipment boots. Put a bit of effort into making equipment boot
faster than it does now. Educate user on use. Sell for £20 wholesale.
How long before one blows up or just causes a fire?
I don't like leaving batteries float charging unnecessarily.
Batteries in UPS need regularly changing, is the average user going to
test their batteries regularly?
I remember a few years ago, someone replied to a query that I posted and
said that at least one mobile phone company had been removing UPS's from their base stations because of all the costs involved in maintenance -
even disposal of the batteries is expensive.
On 14/08/2022 09:37, BrightsideS9 wrote:
That is a solution if the stalwart land line user is offered a mobile
totally paid for by the landline provider.
It would also need to have exactly the same user interface as a 30 year
old POTS phone, including, not needing to connect it to a charger, and
work from the same places in the house, not somewhere outside where the
COPD suffering user, suffering the heart attack, could never reach, or requiring one to go through a smoke filled stairway.
The mobile phone solution tends to assume someone from the mobile phone generation, in fair health, and not trapped by an emergency.
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.
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.
Then stuff it full of primary D cells. Have a change battery indicator that
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.
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.
The mobile phone solution tends to assume someone from the mobile phone generation, in fair health, and not trapped by an emergency.
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> wrote:It's possible yes, but is anyone actually going to do these things?
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 a solved problem with domestic burglar alarms with sealed
lead acid batteries.
Corded style desk telephones that connect via GSM are a thing. A mobile
phone doesn’t have to look like a mobile phone.
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.
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.
It’s a solved problem with domestic burglar alarms with sealed
lead acid batteries.
Which are regularly inspected and batteries regularly replaced.
You aren’t going to keep the wired copper network running based on a few edge cases,
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.
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.
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.
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.
Get a PAYG SIM from giffgaff. You just have to use it every few months
to keep it active.
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 canÂ’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
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Looks to me that BT
is actively trying to make the business go away.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Yes, as I explained a few days ago:
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 15:41:33 +0100, BrightsideS9 <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
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 doesnÂ’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.
Why does a phone have to look like a desktop phone? These days you can
get a phone that looks like a banana, or pretty much anything else you
feel like. As long as it works, who cares?
Rod.
Or you can set a reminder in your Google calendar to do this yourself
every 90 days, or whatever the cutoff limit is for your phone. It's
not difficult.
Why does a phone have to look like a desktop phone? These days you can
get a phone that looks like a banana, or pretty much anything else you
feel like. As long as it works, who cares?
On 14/08/2022 20:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
Or you can set a reminder in your Google calendar to do this yourself
every 90 days, or whatever the cutoff limit is for your phone. It's
not difficult.
The sort of people I'm thinking of here, e.g. my late mother and more recently an elderly neighbour, would not have any form of computer
literacy so would not be able to use any form of electronic calendar.
I can't remember if it was you, but someone mentioned fax and telex, and adapting to those dying out. Those are business services, and you would
get rid of employees that could not cope with the change. That's not an option for the people I think will most likely be landline stalwarts.
The son, daughter, etc., may well create a diary entry reminding them to
make the call to keep the account alive. I think I did, for my mother.
But the person given the phone, by the relative, may not even perceive
the importance of keeping it alive.
On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 09:17:55 +0100, John Armstrong
<jja@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
City Fibre are currently installing fibre in the city where I live. My >>street was done several months ago. When I enquired about
availability, giving my address, they said that I live in a "private
road". This does not inspire me with confidence in their service.
Curious. I also live in a private road i.e. it's unadopted (though not
fenced off like some of the more snooty "private" housing estates).
On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 08:20:47 +0100, 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.
What is the problem with the provision of a mains supply?
Or 2). The continued function of the equipment in a power cut?
2). is easily catered for with a UPS. Search for "UPS" or
"Uninterruptible Power supply" on Amazon to see the variety already available. You can get big ones to power computers, or little low
voltage ones that will just power the router and optical terminal so you
can still use your laptop or tablet till the power is restored.
A problem is only a problem until it's solved.
We have been without power for about 14 hours- my laptop mwouldn't have
kept going that long - but some people were without power for 4 or 5
days earlier this year. A UPS wouldn't be much use for that length of
time.
If power cuts are that much of a problem where you live, you might want
to consider bigger batteries, or even a generator. Take precautions appropriate to your circumstances.
I can only recall two power cuts of a few hours each in the thirty years
or so that I've lived here, so I haven't bothered. If they'd been more frequent I might have some sort of backup system in place by now, but if
they lasted for days, I suspect that loss of internet might be the least
of my worries.
On 11/08/2022 11:36, Bob Latham wrote:
That's why we get hose pipe bans because the service doesn't matter,
only profits do. So leaks don't get properly fixed and de-salination
plants sit idle.
That could be tackled if Ofwat was given sufficient teeth.
From everything that I have read they are trying to clear the backlog
but most because of the days when the water industry was state owned and there was little investment. Been much more investment since
privatisation.
To cope with a power cut the simple solution is a battery pack that is activated only when the emergency call needs to be made.
On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:51:14 +0100, Roderick Stewart ><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 09:17:55 +0100, John Armstrong
<jja@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
City Fibre are currently installing fibre in the city where I live. My >>>street was done several months ago. When I enquired about
availability, giving my address, they said that I live in a "private >>>road". This does not inspire me with confidence in their service.
Curious. I also live in a private road i.e. it's unadopted (though not >>fenced off like some of the more snooty "private" housing estates).
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I do NOT live in a private road. Access to my
flat (and four others) is via a path about 10 yards from the road, but
it is by no means private. As I said, I and others already have
Virgin, and that was installed quite a few years after the flats were
built.
On 14/08/2022 20:16, Roderick Stewart wrote:
Or you can set a reminder in your Google calendar to do this yourself
every 90 days, or whatever the cutoff limit is for your phone. It's
not difficult.
The sort of people I'm thinking of here, e.g. my late mother and more >recently an elderly neighbour, would not have any form of computer
literacy so would not be able to use any form of electronic calendar.
On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:51:14 +0100, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:I wouldn't read City Fibre's use of "private road" literally. They may
On Sun, 14 Aug 2022 09:17:55 +0100, John Armstrong
<jja@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
City Fibre are currently installing fibre in the city where I live. My
street was done several months ago. When I enquired about
availability, giving my address, they said that I live in a "private
road". This does not inspire me with confidence in their service.
Curious. I also live in a private road i.e. it's unadopted (though not
fenced off like some of the more snooty "private" housing estates).
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I do NOT live in a private road. Access to my
flat (and four others) is via a path about 10 yards from the road, but
it is by no means private. As I said, I and others already have
Virgin, and that was installed quite a few years after the flats were
built.
In article <ipvefh1h26ujne3rdtsmd1m4028ji2ntgo@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart ><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 08:20:47 +0100, 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.
What is the problem with the provision of a mains supply?
Or 2). The continued function of the equipment in a power cut?
Yes.
2). is easily catered for with a UPS. Search for "UPS" or
"Uninterruptible Power supply" on Amazon to see the variety already
available. You can get big ones to power computers, or little low
voltage ones that will just power the router and optical terminal so you
can still use your laptop or tablet till the power is restored.
A problem is only a problem until it's solved.
You assume:
1) That the user knows the above and is well informed *before* the change >that it will happen.
2) That they can afford to fit a UPS and use it. And know how to go about >this.
However (at least some of) the companies are taking for granted that
everyone has a 'mobile device' and will simply use that in an emergency >during a power cut. Hence no need to bother informing customers wrt when
the change will happen, etc.
This is the kind of reality Barry himself has encountered, with then the
need to phone a 'call center'... erm...
This should be simple IF the companies behave as they should. But not all
IF statements return TRUE.
In article <5a174c6851charles@candehope.me.uk>, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
We have been without power for about 14 hours- my laptop mwouldn't have
kept going that long - but some people were without power for 4 or 5
days earlier this year. A UPS wouldn't be much use for that length of
time.
Indeed. Apparently the companies are REQUIRED to provide a UPS
arrangement for those who do not have any 'mobile' to use in the event of a power cut + need for 999 call. It is a condition of the changeover.
However they may simply "not ask, not know" as it is for them simpler and cheaper.
All woderful speculative stuff from many posters about digital voice
and power.
Here's wht BT says.
Digital Voice: Will my service work in a power cut?
No, your Hub must have power for you to be able to make calls using
our Digital Voice service.
If there's a power cut, please make calls using an alternative method,
such as a mobile phone.
If you live in an area where you believe you have no mobile reception,
or you don’t have access to a mobile phone please give us a call on
150.
So if any poster knows how BT resolved that for a particular customer
maybe some information, not speculation, posted here would be
appreciated, at least by me.
If you live in an area where you believe you have no mobile reception,
or you don’t have access to a mobile phone please give us a call on
150.
On 15/08/2022 10:46, BrightsideS9 wrote:
If you live in an area where you believe you have no mobile reception,
or you don’t have access to a mobile phone please give us a call on
150.
Openreach, on <https://www.local.gov.uk/our-support/sector-support-offer/supporting-financial-resilience-and-economic-recovery/digital/switchover/faqs>,
which I think means it is an official statement, says:
'Some Communication Providers will offer “at risk†customers a Battery Back Up solution for the router and where necessary the optical network termination for fibre to the public, however some will rely on the
customers own mobile phone service to meet the Office for Communications guidance.'
The let out is that they don't say whether some providers includes BT
retail, although Robin's example seems to indicate that BT retail are
one that will provide back up power.
My general impression is that no company is going to go public on all
the options and when they will use them. I think they intend to play it
by ear, although there probably are or will be confidential guidelines
on the more common cases.
I don't think that what happens when one person makes a request is
likely to be a reliable indicator for anyone else. In some areas this
will already have happened (e.g Robin's example), but the policy may
well adapt in response to what happens in those areas.
I know one vulnerable customer for whom BT provided a UPS[1] free of
charge.
if it's absolutely vital that your fibre service keeps working, and
for some reason you can't use a mobile, then I would suggest that it's
up to you to get yourself a suitable power backup device.
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
It is technically trivial. Box stuffed full of lithium batteries float charged from mains. Pass through to keep router/ONT operating when mains
on. When mains fails power to equipment stops.
How long before one blows up or just causes a fire?
I don't like leaving batteries float charging unnecessarily.
Batteries in UPS need regularly changing, is the average user going to
test their batteries regularly?
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
Overwhelmingly the biggest factor in having delusional beliefs is
Propaganda.
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?
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.
In article <30ihfhpupjiedmicqspbkcjcjv8ls151qs@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
if it's absolutely vital that your fibre service keeps working, and
for some reason you can't use a mobile, then I would suggest that it's
up to you to get yourself a suitable power backup device.
AIUI the service provider is *required* to ensure you can still 'use a >phone'. So the legal burden is on them. Problem is, they may simply take
for granted "everyone has a mobile, so that's OK".
Jim
Batteries in UPS need regularly changing, is the average user
going to
test their batteries regularly?
I may be wrong, but I've assumed that modern 'house batteries'
have some degree of 'clever' maintainance electronics.
I'd expect that of a decent UPS.
It was a GPO requirement that phones had to go on working in power cuts.
In article <5a17d1a557bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
Overwhelmingly the biggest factor in having delusional beliefs is Propaganda.
Thanks. I did LOL at that. :-)
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?
And this from the man who refuses to even read the book I suggested
on Climate Change because he "knows" from his actual *ignorance* of
its content that it must be a "Bible". Whilst presenting gems like
his "two points paper" here as being evidence for his delusions on
the topic.
A paper we duly read and found to be nonsense in terms of actual
evidence.
In contrast to his flat refusual to even read a book full
of references to measured evidence.
In article <7m1ifh93olmot95r5kfkp9m4clnirusp2v@4ax.com>, BrightsideS9 <reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
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
Particularly odd plan at a time when many people will be struggling to
afford food and heating! But we can't have "inefficient" public control of energy can we, that would be awful.
Jim
In article <tdae64$342jk$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
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
It is technically trivial. Box stuffed full of lithium batteries float
charged from mains. Pass through to keep router/ONT operating when mains
on. When mains fails power to equipment stops.
"Technically", yes. But the real problem is that some users either don't
know any of this - or what may happen soon to them - or find they are
already easily afford food/heating - or be elderly/disabled and can't find out about this or physically do the things needed. etc. etc.
And when the connection provider makes a change like this taking for
granted what the mere 'customer' can/will do.
The point Barry is making is that what should happen, all too often, isn't. And trying to sort this out with the provider is a nightmare. He's quite
good at arguing with companies and finding things out. A friend of mine who is bedridden and relies on 'pop in carers' during the day may find this
more difficult. His only way to communicate is via those visitors or his standard phone. No mobile, no computers, etc.
Jim
In article <5a18459960noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <5a17d1a557bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
Overwhelmingly the biggest factor in having delusional beliefs is
Propaganda.
Thanks. I did LOL at that. :-)
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?
And this from the man who refuses to even read the book I suggested
on Climate Change because he "knows" from his actual *ignorance* of
its content that it must be a "Bible". Whilst presenting gems like
his "two points paper" here as being evidence for his delusions on
the topic.
You've raised the issue of the two point paper before whenever you
need to have an attack on me. I've no idea to what it refers and I
don't care. Knock yourself out, I know the more you attack me, the
weaker you position.
A paper we duly read and found to be nonsense in terms of actual
evidence.
You mean the leftie activists decided they didn't like it whatever it
was - ok.
In contrast to his flat refusual to even read a book full
of references to measured evidence.
Did the book come down from heaven, written on a tablet by god
himself? Or is it a man's opinion?
Yes, of course any view different to your's is wrong by definition,
the left can't stand different POVs, everyone has to be on song
perfectly with evenly distributed misery.
On climate change, enjoy this.
The reason the IPCC and other climate bedwetters always refer back to
around 150 years ago is simple. It was near the lowest point in the
last 10,000 years so hardly representative. We are roughly 1 deg
above the coldest it has been in the last 10,000 years and remarkably
2 degs cooler than the warmest.
!30,000 years ago, temperatures were 6 deg warmer than now and hippos
and elephants lived on the banks of the Thames.
So unprecedented - no.
Here's another excellent video from Tony Heller who shows clearly
fraud being used and what a heat wave was like in the early 1900s in
the USA. Ours is nothing compared to that. I take it you've not
considered suicide due to the heat?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEcRGXzv_5U
Yes, dismiss it, slag me of for pointing out the truth but you know
really, you know he's right.
Have you seen the WEF website? They're quite open about their control
plans, they just need reasons for global communism and CO2 and a new
pandemic will supply just that.
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <7m1ifh93olmot95r5kfkp9m4clnirusp2v@4ax.com>, BrightsideS9
<reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
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
Particularly odd plan at a time when many people will be struggling to
afford food and heating! But we can't have "inefficient" public control of >> energy can we, that would be awful.
Jim
£7.50 is cheaper than the standard BT line rental by a factor of 2 or 3 >depending on your deal. It’s also the same price that BT or Zen charge for
a voip service on top of a broadband service. A voip service via the likes
of Sipgate costs nothing apart small call charges. If you are trying to
wave the shroud of the aged poverty stricken pensioner with a voice only
line then they would be better off with a mobile tariff. The savings will
pay for a desk style gsm phone in around 6 months, for those that can’t
cope with a standard mobile phone. I get the feeling all these calls to the >disadvantaged are simply an excuse by the able and well off who don’t want
to face change.
On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 15:41:42 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <7m1ifh93olmot95r5kfkp9m4clnirusp2v@4ax.com>, BrightsideS9
<reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
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
Particularly odd plan at a time when many people will be struggling to
afford food and heating! But we can't have "inefficient" public control of >>> energy can we, that would be awful.
Jim
£7.50 is cheaper than the standard BT line rental by a factor of 2 or 3
depending on your deal. ItÂ’s also the same price that BT or Zen charge for >> a voip service on top of a broadband service. A voip service via the likes >> of Sipgate costs nothing apart small call charges. If you are trying to
wave the shroud of the aged poverty stricken pensioner with a voice only
line then they would be better off with a mobile tariff. The savings will
pay for a desk style gsm phone in around 6 months, for those that canÂ’t
cope with a standard mobile phone. I get the feeling all these calls to the >> disadvantaged are simply an excuse by the able and well off who donÂ’t want >> to face change.
You still don't get it do you?
There are several factors that have to be considered that leads this
user to be a stalwart land line user, it is not just economics.
Beware these APC devices have multiple IEC socket outlets
On 16/08/2022 12:16, Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd wrote:
Beware these APC devices have multiple IEC socket outlets
Can you explain why? Most of the ones I have looked at had at least two
IEC outlets.
Jim
On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 09:51:46 +0100, Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:
In article <30ihfhpupjiedmicqspbkcjcjv8ls151qs@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
if it's absolutely vital that your fibre service keeps working, and
for some reason you can't use a mobile, then I would suggest that it's
up to you to get yourself a suitable power backup device.
AIUI the service provider is *required* to ensure you can still 'use a
phone'. So the legal burden is on them. Problem is, they may simply take
for granted "everyone has a mobile, so that's OK".
This requirement has been quietly watered down in effect dropped. FromJim
If something is vital to me, then regardless of anybody else's responsibilities I'd rather take any necessary precautions myself and
make sure they're done properly and to *my* exact requirements than
leave it to someone else to do what *they* think will suffice.
Anyone who can't do this themselves would be better putting themselves
in the hands of a knowledgeable friend than any big company.
Rod.
On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 15:41:42 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <7m1ifh93olmot95r5kfkp9m4clnirusp2v@4ax.com>, BrightsideS9
<reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
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
Particularly odd plan at a time when many people will be struggling to
afford food and heating! But we can't have "inefficient" public control of >>> energy can we, that would be awful.
Jim
£7.50 is cheaper than the standard BT line rental by a factor of 2 or 3
depending on your deal. It’s also the same price that BT or Zen charge for >> a voip service on top of a broadband service. A voip service via the likes >> of Sipgate costs nothing apart small call charges. If you are trying to
wave the shroud of the aged poverty stricken pensioner with a voice only
line then they would be better off with a mobile tariff. The savings will
pay for a desk style gsm phone in around 6 months, for those that can’t
cope with a standard mobile phone. I get the feeling all these calls to the >> disadvantaged are simply an excuse by the able and well off who don’t want >> to face change.
You still don't get it do you?
There are several factors that have to be considered that leads this
user to be a stalwart land line user, it is not just economics.
My thought is that "wallwart" PSUs don't use IEC connectors. I
have a 4x13A strip running off one IEC.
My thought is that "wallwart" PSUs don't use IEC connectors. I have a
4x13A strip running off one IEC.
Exactly, although I have two 4x13A strips.
I have some IEC-IEC cables for the PCs on the larger APC, but also a 13A strip for the network switch and access point power supplies.
My house has a lot of ethernet wiring under the floors, more reliable networking than mesh repeaters.
Angus
However they may simply "not ask, not know" as it is for them simpler
and cheaper.
I'd reckon most realise that e.g. poorly babies dying because no one
could call an ambulance leads to opprobrium, fines, and compensation.
IME companies are like individuals: most don't try it on when the odds
of getting caught are high and the punishment hurts.
And this from the man who refuses to even read the book I suggested on Climate Change because he "knows" from his actual *ignorance* of its content that it must be a "Bible". Whilst presenting gems like his
"two points paper" here as being evidence for his delusions on the
topic.
You've raised the issue of the two point paper before whenever you need
to have an attack on me. I've no idea to what it refers and I don't
care. Knock yourself out, I know the more you attack me, the weaker you position.
A paper we duly read and found to be nonsense in terms of actual
evidence.
You mean the leftie activists decided they didn't like it whatever it
was - ok.
In contrast to his flat refusual to even read a book full of
references to measured evidence.
Did the book come down from heaven, written on a tablet by god himself?
Or is it a man's opinion?
AIUI the service provider is *required* to ensure you can still 'use
a phone'. So the legal burden is on them. Problem is, they may simply
take for granted "everyone has a mobile, so that's OK".
No longer. Ofcom says "they must have a solution" not that "voip must
work in power cut" in fact it goes on to say "the technology used to
provide this solution isn't fixed" & only specifies 1 hour duration in a power cut. See below for documents...
If something is vital to me, then regardless of anybody else's responsibilities I'd rather take any necessary precautions myself and
make sure they're done properly and to *my* exact requirements than
leave it to someone else to do what *they* think will suffice.
And those vulnerable people should be supported by the authorities accordingly. It's not a justification for keeping the wired copper
network going. Is there any reason why your friend can't have a desk
style gsm phone?
You seem now to have developed dementia as well as being paranoid!
claimed as the basis of his daft assertion.
In article <tdgddg$388m$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:
And those vulnerable people should be supported by the authorities
accordingly. It's not a justification for keeping the wired copper
network going. Is there any reason why your friend can't have a desk
style gsm phone?
You're missing the point. This is that the company is making the change *without* telling people of this consequence. Let alone check if they can afford it or live where they'd get a mobile to work.
where the *NET* radiation is effectively zero,
In article <5a194e38e0noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
You seem now to have developed dementia as well as being paranoid!
claimed as the basis of his daft assertion.
Sooner or later with extreme lefties, they cannot resist, they always
live down to my expectations and start the insults again, it's their
first weapon. So tired of it. It makes your argument weaker not
stronger.
You wish to ignore history.
Ignore data tampering.
Ignore emails describing the plot to remove "inconvenient" things
from history which JJ of course claimed was debunked but of course
that easy to say but untrue. The emails still exist and we know who
wrote them and why.
Ignore temperature records where no tampering has taken place.
Ignore that models are preset to give the desired result.
Ignore previous warm periods warmer than now, both in the last
century and centuries ago.
Ignore the obvious "fix" described in this video which in common with
so many slams the door on items that don't suite the agenda, just
like the BBC. To me, it looks like a corrupt stitch up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJIw7ulYaGk
Why is it that the most profound anti CO2 people are left wing?
Globalist and communist using a myth as a weapon on the gullible.
I've had enough, with you anmd the insults.
On Sat, 13 Aug 2022 15:58:44 +0100, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
Watching young people on TV, many seem closer to dementia than many
older people. They can rarer speak properly, they might be able to get
onto various online sites but havd very limited technical knowledge.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVPCGA6IJXY
This is a Youtube channel where someone puts simple questions to
random young people in the street. If they're not stooges or actors
(and they seem genuine as far as it's possible to judge) then the
profundity of their ignorance on all subjects will astonish you.
Rod.
You wish to ignore history.
Ignore data tampering.
In article <tdgddg$388m$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com>
wrote:
And those vulnerable people should be supported by the authorities
accordingly. It's not a justification for keeping the wired copper
network going. Is there any reason why your friend can't have a desk
style gsm phone?
You're missing the point. This is that the company is making the change *without* telling people of this consequence. Let alone check if they can afford it or live where they'd get a mobile to work.
BTW Barry isn't just a 'friend' of mine. He is also a well-known
journalist who has decades of publishing technical articles in a
wide range of magazines and journals. His original focus was
on things like patents, but this expanded over the years. He
did for some years write as "Adrian Hope" IIRC.
Jim
In article <5a19d5a74cbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>,
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
When you and the other climate bedwetters have destroyed the west and
we're all global communist living in cold, hungry poverty I suppose
you'll be happy.
1,200 Scientists & professionals sign World Climate Declaration &
say: There is no climate emergency:
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/18/1200-scientists-and-professionals-declare-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
Obviously they're all mad, liars, bigots because they disagree with
your narrative and the WEF/communist suicidal agenda.
On 18/08/2022 17:05, Bob Latham wrote:
1,200 Scientists & professionals sign World Climate Declaration &
say: There is no climate emergency:
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/18/1200-scientists-and-professionals-declare-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
The same old bullshitters recycling the same old fake news, for example here's an analysis of the Australian contributors:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-27/who-are--scientists-professionals-who-say-no-climate-emergency/11734966?nw=0&r=HtmlFragment
"Since Mr Kelly posted the petition on Facebook, it has been re-released
with over 700 signatories, including 109 Australians, and rebadged the
"World Climate Declaration".
Fact Check's investigation focuses on the version presented by Mr Kelly
in October, 2019.
Key points
-Â Â Â Many of the Australian signatories have current or former
connections to the mining industry
-Â Â Â Less than 19 per cent of Australian signatories were verified by
Fact Check to have held an academic position, or published peer-reviewed research
-Â Â Â The majority are listed as working or previously working in fields unrelated to climate science or the environment"
Obviously they're all mad, liars, bigots because they disagree with
your narrative and the WEF/communist suicidal agenda.
No, the vast majority have little or zilch scientific knowledge, and of
the minority of genuine scientists in the list, the vast majority of
those are salaried by the fossil-fuel industry and are dancing to their employer's tune. Of the handful of genuine scientists remaining after
the above are discounted, none or nearly none are climate scientists or
have any working knowledge of climate science.
So anytime you see the next recycling of this well-known denialist "list
of climate scientists questioning climate change" ploy, just remember,
the actual number is somewhere around 12,
less than 1% of the field!
STOP SPAMMING THIS NG!
On 18/08/2022 17:05, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <5a19d5a74cbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
1,200 Scientists & professionals sign World Climate Declaration & say: There is no climate emergency:
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/18/1200-scientists-and-professionals-declare-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
The same old bullshitters recycling the same old fake news, for example here's an analysis of the Australian contributors:
In article <5a194e38e0noise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
<noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
You seem now to have developed dementia as well as being paranoid!
claimed as the basis of his daft assertion.
Sooner or later with extreme lefties, they cannot resist, ...
You wish to ignore history.
Ignore data tampering.
On 17/08/2022 10:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <tdgddg$388m$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
And those vulnerable people should be supported by the authorities
accordingly. It's not a justification for keeping the wired copper
network going. Is there any reason why your friend can't have a desk
style gsm phone?
You're missing the point. This is that the company is making the
change *without* telling people of this consequence. Let alone check
if they can afford it or live where they'd get a mobile to work.
BTW Barry isn't just a 'friend' of mine. He is also a well-known
journalist who has decades of publishing technical articles in a wide
range of magazines and journals. His original focus was on things like patents, but this expanded over the years. He did for some years write
as "Adrian Hope" IIRC.
Jim
As in Barry Fox by any chance?
In article <tdmffr$168pk$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 18/08/2022 17:05, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <5a19d5a74cbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
1,200 Scientists & professionals sign World Climate Declaration & say:
There is no climate emergency:
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/18/1200-scientists-and-professionals-declare-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
The same old bullshitters recycling the same old fake news, for example
here's an analysis of the Australian contributors:
(snip details of shakey claims)
Thanks, JJ. Saves me doing it. :-) It'll bounce off Bob, but lets others seen the problem with Bob's sour cherries.
Jim
Any chance any of you can amend the subject title when going off on
another climate change (or other grossly off topic) sub thread? It
will give the rest of us a chance to ignore it.
In article <tdmffr$168pk$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 18/08/2022 17:05, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <5a19d5a74cbob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
1,200 Scientists & professionals sign World Climate Declaration & say: There is no climate emergency:
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/08/18/1200-scientists-and-professionals-declare-there-is-no-climate-emergency/
The same old bullshitters recycling the same old fake news, for example here's an analysis of the Australian contributors:
In article <tdqb2e$1rt62$1@dont-email.me>,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Any chance any of you can amend the subject title when going off on
another climate change (or other grossly off topic) sub thread? It
will give the rest of us a chance to ignore it.
I'm out anyway. arguing with arrogant lefties is pointless.
In article <5a1a546663noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <tdmffr$168pk$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
The same old bullshitters recycling the same old fake news, for example
here's an analysis of the Australian contributors:
There is no climate emergency. Nothing is happening that hasn't
happened before and more so.
I'm out anyway. arguing with arrogant lefties is pointless.
The modern climate nonsense isn't science its the the politics of the
left wing activists trying to destroy capitalism and they're being
rather successful. This then backed up by left wing media pumping
ridiculous propaganda day and night with the same agenda.
Science expects scepticism, debate and argument. Science never says
"the science is settled" or "follow the science" or "the science
says". Debate and argument are part of how science works.
Science doesn't data tamper, it doesn't lie about past temperatures
or lie about current temperatures. It doesn't air brush inconvenient
items out of history.
Attacking people and silencing people isn't science its foul politics.
Recently, I note the latest deep space telescope images are making
people even think the big band theory is wrong. I've no idea but
others are worried about this. Science is never settled.
No predictions for climate change have ever got anywhere near coming
true.
How many times have we had - if we don't cut CO2 within n years
then x will happen but it never ever does. Prince Charles alone has
at least 3 failed predictions on his own.
Why are the prices of luxury houses and apartments near the beaches
all over the world not dropping in price? Why have no islands
vanished as promised?
Then we get the items from around the world pointed out. Barrier
reef, glaciers, the poles - always places people don't go, why is
that? Eventually all turn out to be BS.
Barrier reef doing fantastic - silence.
Glaciers have chunks break off which is well reported as being
climate change but when it grows back - silence.
Sea ice growing - silence.
Greenland - silence.
The left media only report stuff that matches their agenda.
Graphs produced by naive models pre-programmed to illustrate the
creators view are hopeless for both covid and climate. Remember prof
pants down?
If theses dangerous people are not stopped, we will soon have no
meat, no affordable energy, no jobs, no private transport and our
lives will be a fight to exist.
Whilst the elite and the WEF will
carry on with their private jets etc.
Net zero will kill far more people than climate change just like the
press now realise that Lockdowns are killing more people than covid.
You were warned at the time but of course you knew better and
everyone telling you this had to be vilified.
Why are people so naive? Why can't you see what's happening?
Don't say you weren't warned, again.
On 20/08/2022 12:22, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <tdqb2e$1rt62$1@dont-email.me>,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Any chance any of you can amend the subject title when going off on
another climate change (or other grossly off topic) sub thread? It
will give the rest of us a chance to ignore it.
I'm out anyway. arguing with arrogant lefties is pointless.
*SO STOP DRAGGING THREADS OFF-TOPIC WITH YOUR VARIOUS DENIALIST RELIGIONS*
Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
On 20/08/2022 12:22, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <tdqb2e$1rt62$1@dont-email.me>,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Any chance any of you can amend the subject title when going off on
another climate change (or other grossly off topic) sub thread? It
will give the rest of us a chance to ignore it.
I'm out anyway. arguing with arrogant lefties is pointless.
*SO STOP DRAGGING THREADS OFF-TOPIC WITH YOUR VARIOUS DENIALIST RELIGIONS*
Seeing as neither of you can amend the subject field….
Any chance any of you can amend the subject title when going off on
another climate change (or other grossly off topic) sub thread? It will
give the rest of us a chance to ignore it.
The troll Bob, or any other troll (if you think troll is a fair
description)
Seeing as neither of you can amend the subject field….Any chance any of you can amend the subject title when going off on
another climate change (or other grossly off topic) sub thread? It
will give the rest of us a chance to ignore it.
I'm out anyway. arguing with arrogant lefties is pointless.
*SO STOP DRAGGING THREADS OFF-TOPIC WITH YOUR VARIOUS DENIALIST RELIGIONS* >>
I take your point, but the real problem here is the troll Bob.[...]
In article <auq3ghh007tru6dk1k27p8ttqsvelvoi2l@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
The troll Bob, or any other troll (if you think troll is a fair
description)
I am called a troll for one simple reason and one reason alone.
I have a different opinion from the left wing media. An opinion that
is shared by millions of other Brits. The left fight their arguments
with personal attacks because their arguments are weak and they are
filled with hate, it's written on their faces.
Bob.
On the contrary, when I was first reading about climate change around
the turn of 60s/70s, it was predicted that we are warming the world, and manifestly the world has indeed got warmer ever since.
In article <auq3ghh007tru6dk1k27p8ttqsvelvoi2l@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
The troll Bob, or any other troll (if you think troll is a fair
description)
I am called a troll for one simple reason and one reason alone.
I have a different opinion from the left wing media. An opinion that
is shared by millions of other Brits. The left fight their arguments
with personal attacks because their arguments are weak and they are
filled with hate, it's written on their faces.
Bob.
The troll Bob, or any other troll (if you think troll is a fair
description)
can easily be dealt with if anything needs to be done.
There is a well established procedure for dealing with trolls on the internet, which is to leave them alone. Don't respond. Don't answer.
It's not a competition. Resist the temptation to have the last word,
and recognise when someone else is failing to do so, otherwise you may
find yourself bickering like children with no end in sight and no clarification of the original subject for anyone else.
Bob isn't a troll because trolls put up arguments that they don't
necessarily believe in or they are just pointlessly contrarian. Bob is absolutely sincere in his beliefs.
On 20/08/2022 17:09, Java Jive wrote:
On the contrary, when I was first reading about climate change around
the turn of 60s/70s, it was predicted that we are warming the world,
and manifestly the world has indeed got warmer ever since.
I have no intention of making an argument about it, but in the early
1960s I was at school and I used to go to the school library and read
the magazines that I couldn't afford to buy. In one copy of the New
Scientist somewhere between 1963 and 1966 there was an article that
explained that the drift of the sun through the spiral arm was gradually taking it out of an area containing interstellar dust unto an area where
the dust was very much reduced and this would progressively provide
slightly more radiant energy from the sun reaching the Earth than had
been the case for a couple of millennia before.
I assume that such a claim would have been reviewed before New Scientist published it. However, I have never seen it mentioned since, so I
wonder if it has been included in the climate models currently in use?
In article <auq3ghh007tru6dk1k27p8ttqsvelvoi2l@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
The troll Bob, or any other troll (if you think troll is a fair
description)
I am called a troll for one simple reason and one reason alone.
Bob isn't a troll because trolls put up arguments that they don't
necessarily believe in or they are just pointlessly contrarian. Bob
is absolutely sincere in his beliefs.
I assume that such a claim would have been reviewed before New
Scientist published it. However, I have never seen it mentioned
since, so I wonder if it has been included in the climate models
currently in use?
There is no climate emergency. Nothing is happening that hasn't
happened before and more so.
Science expects scepticism, debate and argument. Science never says
"the science is settled" or "follow the science" or "the science
says". Debate and argument are part of how science works.
Recently, I note the latest deep space telescope images are making
people even think the big band theory is wrong. I've no idea but
others are worried about this. Science is never settled.
No predictions for climate change have ever got anywhere near coming
true.
Recently, I note the latest deep space telescope images are making
people even think the big band theory is wrong. I've no idea but
others are worried about this. Science is never settled.
AIUI, not so much wrong, as incomplete.
In article <tdqb2e$1rt62$1@dont-email.me>, Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Any chance any of you can amend the subject title when going off on
another climate change (or other grossly off topic) sub thread? It
will give the rest of us a chance to ignore it.
I'm out anyway. arguing with arrogant lefties is pointless.
The troll Bob, or any other troll (if you think troll is a fair
description) can easily be dealt with if anything needs to be done.
There is a well established procedure for dealing with trolls on the internet, which is to leave them alone. Don't respond.
I do though reserve the right to point out the absolute stupidity of
Net zero.
On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 14:43:17 +0100, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
I do though reserve the right to point out the absolute stupidity of
Net zero.
Indeed. There are no absolute zeros in real life, only asymptotes, but
not everybody understands this.
On 21/08/2022 12:09, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 20/08/2022 17:09, Java Jive wrote:
On the contrary, when I was first reading about climate change around
the turn of 60s/70s, it was predicted that we are warming the world,
and manifestly the world has indeed got warmer ever since.
I have no intention of making an argument about it, but in the early
1960s I was at school and I used to go to the school library and read
the magazines that I couldn't afford to buy. In one copy of the New
Scientist somewhere between 1963 and 1966 there was an article that
explained that the drift of the sun through the spiral arm was
gradually taking it out of an area containing interstellar dust unto
an area where the dust was very much reduced and this would
progressively provide slightly more radiant energy from the sun
reaching the Earth than had been the case for a couple of millennia
before.
I assume that such a claim would have been reviewed before New
Scientist published it. However, I have never seen it mentioned
since, so I wonder if it has been included in the climate models
currently in use?
You've made this claim at least twice before, but have never been able
to verify it. Until you do, it just remains a claim.
On 21/08/2022 13:32, Java Jive wrote:
I have an excellent memory of things that I have read and were
On 21/08/2022 12:09, Indy Jess John wrote:
I have no intention of making an argument about it, but in the early
1960s I was at school and I used to go to the school library and read
the magazines that I couldn't afford to buy. In one copy of the New
Scientist somewhere between 1963 and 1966 there was an article that
explained that the drift of the sun through the spiral arm was
gradually taking it out of an area containing interstellar dust unto
an area where the dust was very much reduced and this would
progressively provide slightly more radiant energy from the sun
reaching the Earth than had been the case for a couple of millennia
before.
I assume that such a claim would have been reviewed before New
Scientist published it. However, I have never seen it mentioned
since, so I wonder if it has been included in the climate models
currently in use?
You've made this claim at least twice before, but have never been able
to verify it. Until you do, it just remains a claim.
interested in. I didn't need to revise for any of my O-levels or
A-levels because I could already remember it clearly when I sat the exams.
Just because you dismiss what I remember reading doesn't make it untrue.
 However, your reply is a fairly clear indication that the effect is
not built into the current models.
On 21/08/2022 21:08, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 21/08/2022 13:32, Java Jive wrote:
I have an excellent memory of things that I have read and were
On 21/08/2022 12:09, Indy Jess John wrote:
I have no intention of making an argument about it, but in the early
1960s I was at school and I used to go to the school library and
read the magazines that I couldn't afford to buy. In one copy of the
New Scientist somewhere between 1963 and 1966 there was an article
that explained that the drift of the sun through the spiral arm was
gradually taking it out of an area containing interstellar dust unto
an area where the dust was very much reduced and this would
progressively provide slightly more radiant energy from the sun
reaching the Earth than had been the case for a couple of millennia
before.
I assume that such a claim would have been reviewed before New
Scientist published it. However, I have never seen it mentioned
since, so I wonder if it has been included in the climate models
currently in use?
You've made this claim at least twice before, but have never been
able to verify it. Until you do, it just remains a claim.
interested in. I didn't need to revise for any of my O-levels or
A-levels because I could already remember it clearly when I sat the
exams.
But again, to the rest of us, this is just more hearsay. If you want us
to discuss the original science that you claim to remember, you need to produce *EVIDENCE* for it.
Just because you dismiss what I remember reading doesn't make it
untrue. Â Â However, your reply is a fairly clear indication that the
effect is not built into the current models.
That is a non-sequitur, I don't write the current models, so what I know
or don't know about the science you claim to remember doesn't affect
what goes into them.
On 21/08/2022 21:38, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/08/2022 21:08, Indy Jess John wrote:
On 21/08/2022 13:32, Java Jive wrote:
I have an excellent memory of things that I have read and were
On 21/08/2022 12:09, Indy Jess John wrote:
I have no intention of making an argument about it, but in the
early 1960s I was at school and I used to go to the school library
and read the magazines that I couldn't afford to buy. In one copy
of the New Scientist somewhere between 1963 and 1966 there was an
article that explained that the drift of the sun through the spiral
arm was gradually taking it out of an area containing interstellar
dust unto an area where the dust was very much reduced and this
would progressively provide slightly more radiant energy from the
sun reaching the Earth than had been the case for a couple of
millennia before.
I assume that such a claim would have been reviewed before New
Scientist published it. However, I have never seen it mentioned
since, so I wonder if it has been included in the climate models
currently in use?
You've made this claim at least twice before, but have never been
able to verify it. Until you do, it just remains a claim.
interested in. I didn't need to revise for any of my O-levels or
A-levels because I could already remember it clearly when I sat the
exams.
But again, to the rest of us, this is just more hearsay. If you want
us to discuss the original science that you claim to remember, you
need to produce *EVIDENCE* for it.
Just because you dismiss what I remember reading doesn't make it
untrue. Â Â However, your reply is a fairly clear indication that the
effect is not built into the current models.
That is a non-sequitur, I don't write the current models, so what I
know or don't know about the science you claim to remember doesn't
affect what goes into them.
So by your own admission, even if I produce evidence you still won't
know if it is in the models or not. So you just want me to waste my time
for no benefit.
I am not going to trawl through years of New Scientist to find the
article I read, but this link is good enough to show that I didn't make
it up. https://www.universetoday.com/147621/the-solar-system-has-been-flying-through-the-debris-of-a-supernova-for-33000-years/
On 20/08/2022 17:09, Java Jive wrote:
On the contrary, when I was first reading about climate change around
the turn of 60s/70s, it was predicted that we are warming the world, and
manifestly the world has indeed got warmer ever since.
I have no intention of making an argument about it, but in the early
1960s I was at school and I used to go to the school library and read
the magazines that I couldn't afford to buy. In one copy of the New
Scientist somewhere between 1963 and 1966 there was an article that
explained that the drift of the sun through the spiral arm was gradually >taking it out of an area containing interstellar dust unto an area where
the dust was very much reduced and this would progressively provide
slightly more radiant energy from the sun reaching the Earth than had
been the case for a couple of millennia before.
I assume that such a claim would have been reviewed before New Scientist >published it. However, I have never seen it mentioned since, so I
wonder if it has been included in the climate models currently in use?
The troll Bob, or any other troll (if you think troll is a fair description)
I am called a troll for one simple reason and one reason alone.
I have a different opinion from the left wing media. An opinion that is shared by millions of other Brits. The left fight their arguments with personal attacks because their arguments are weak and they are filled
with hate, it's written on their faces.
On 21/08/2022 09:36, Roderick Stewart wrote:
The troll Bob, or any other troll (if you think troll is a fair description)
His behaviour is all we can observe, and that is clearly the behaviour
of a serially dishonest troll and liar, as described in my answer to
Bill.
I have no intention of making an argument about it, but in the early
1960s I was at school and I used to go to the school library and read
the magazines that I couldn't afford to buy. In one copy of the New
Scientist somewhere between 1963 and 1966 there was an article that
explained that the drift of the sun through the spiral arm was gradually taking it out of an area containing interstellar dust unto an area
where the dust was very much reduced and this would progressively
provide slightly more radiant energy from the sun reaching the Earth
than had been the case for a couple of millennia before.
I assume that such a claim would have been reviewed before New Scientist published it. However, I have never seen it mentioned since, so I
wonder if it has been included in the climate models currently in use?
Bob isn't a troll because trolls put up arguments that they don't
necessarily believe in or they are just pointlessly contrarian. Bob is absolutely sincere in his beliefs.
It would be a cheap shot to respond to this by saying "But he's
wrong/he's a pillock, yah boo sucks."
Thank you for that Bill, you are indeed correct I do firmly believe what
I write and I never lie. What is more I have the right to hold views the
left disapprove of, in fact it's almost a duty and it's my right to
speak them especially when climate nonsense is pushed by others.
However, I'm not perfect and could from time to time be wrong but not
often.
In article <5a1b76afb8bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
Thank you for that Bill, you are indeed correct I do firmly believe what
I write and I never lie. What is more I have the right to hold views the left disapprove of, in fact it's almost a duty and it's my right to
speak them especially when climate nonsense is pushed by others.
However, I'm not perfect and could from time to time be wrong but not often.
Good. So you can now try reading the book I suggested and we can
take it from the point when you've started to study and understand
the mountains of diverse evicence that support both 'natural' and
man-made climate changes.
Simply claiming you are correct, and all that evidence is wrong,
won't conform to what you say above. Believing what you claim
doesn't make it true.
Anyone can have an 'opinion'. The snag is that reality doesn't care
what anynne would prefer to believe. Your argument is based on
refusing to learn about the scientific reality as shown by that
evidence.
You could say it is my 'duty' to keep pointing out what the
*evidence* tells us, and that it conflicts with what you
believe/claim over and over and over again, whilst refusing to
learn about that evidence that confounds your beliefs.
Can't help much with your belief that any idea you don't like is
"leftie" though as that's a matter for trick cyclists, not natural
science. :-)
In article <tdt8ho$2bd2v$1@dont-email.me>, Java Jive
<java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
His behaviour is all we can observe, and that is clearly the behaviour
of a serially dishonest troll and liar, as described in my answer to
Bill.
I'll differ from that. I think he is sincere in what he states he believes. The root of the problem is that he refuses to read and understand the
actual evidence showing the science which is considerable and detailed.
He believes what it *wants* to believe.
Sorry, not interested in your religion.
In article <tdt3pu$2b002$1@dont-email.me>,
Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
I assume that such a claim would have been reviewed before New
Scientist published it. However, I have never seen it mentioned
since, so I wonder if it has been included in the climate models
currently in use?
I'll be honest Jim I've no idea but as the people behind these
computer models are not remotely interested in the truth I rather
doubt it.
NS from 22 Nov 1956 onwards thru the 1960 and 1970s is online courtesy
of Google Books. If you remember somne key words from the article a
search on all issues could find it.
I am not going to trawl through years of New Scientist to find the
article I read, but this link is good enough to show that I didn't make
it up. https://www.universetoday.com/147621/the-solar-system-has-been-flying-through-the-debris-of-a-supernova-for-33000-years/
On 21/08/2022 13:32, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/08/2022 12:09, Indy Jess John wrote:
I have no intention of making an argument about it, but in the early
1960s I was at school and I used to go to the school library and read
the magazines that I couldn't afford to buy. In one copy of the New
Scientist somewhere between 1963 and 1966 there was an article that
explained that the drift of the sun through the spiral arm was
gradually taking it out of an area containing interstellar dust unto
an area where the dust was very much reduced and this would
progressively provide slightly more radiant energy from the sun
reaching the Earth than had been the case for a couple of millennia
before.
You've made this claim at least twice before, but have never been able
to verify it. Until you do, it just remains a claim.
Just because you dismiss what I remember reading doesn't make it untrue. However, your reply is a fairly clear indication that the effect is
not built into the current models.
https://www.universetoday.com/147621/the-solar-system-has-been-flying-through-the-debris-of-a-supernova-for-33000-years/
Interesting, but I can't see anything there that is likely to affect
global warming significantly.
Also, don't forget that even if this hypothesis turns out to be true,
we're constantly measuring the sun's radiation reaching the earth
anyway, so any change in it for whatever reason will already be being measured!
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-incoming-sunlight
I do though reserve the right to point out the absolute stupidity of
Net zero.
Indeed. There are no absolute zeros in real life, only asymptotes, but
not everybody understands this.
In article <5ds4gh1pq8trrlel7646fd7nnpqk18668q@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart ><rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
I do though reserve the right to point out the absolute stupidity of
Net zero.
Indeed. There are no absolute zeros in real life, only asymptotes, but
not everybody understands this.
However it might be possible to arrange for values that fluctuate between
+ve and -ve that serve in practice as would 'zero'. Indeed, it might be >possible to establish net negative in some way over a period. Not wise to >assume that what seems "impossible" for us must be so in a later >decade/century.
Jim
In article <smf6ghl50l93eu28ms2186pfckh7dbrmfq@4ax.com>, BrightsideS9 ><reply_to_address_is_not@invalid.invalid> wrote:
NS from 22 Nov 1956 onwards thru the 1960 and 1970s is online courtesy
of Google Books. If you remember somne key words from the article a
search on all issues could find it.
Not a fan of Google and don't use them normally. But I'll see if I can find >something without them snooping on me. Do you have a better URL than simply >saying "Google Books"? If not, I'll see if I can get anywhere with them.
But in current climate terms this already looks pretty doubtful as a
concern.
In article <tdu3cq$2e0gj$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 21/08/2022 13:32, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/08/2022 12:09, Indy Jess John wrote:
I have no intention of making an argument about it, but in the early
1960s I was at school and I used to go to the school library and read
the magazines that I couldn't afford to buy. In one copy of the New
Scientist somewhere between 1963 and 1966 there was an article that
explained that the drift of the sun through the spiral arm was
gradually taking it out of an area containing interstellar dust unto
an area where the dust was very much reduced and this would
progressively provide slightly more radiant energy from the sun
reaching the Earth than had been the case for a couple of millennia
before.
You've made this claim at least twice before, but have never been able
to verify it. Until you do, it just remains a claim.
Just because you dismiss what I remember reading doesn't make it untrue.
However, your reply is a fairly clear indication that the effect is
not built into the current models.
Agree with your first statement there. However without being able to read
the actual item in ye olde NS we don't know the full story of what it said.
You second statement may simply mean it was examined and found not to be a factor for the timescales that concern humanity at present. And that what references we've found don't mention it for that reason.
However NS often published 'speculative' articles about what *might* come
to pass or 'might' turn out to be true. Know this because I wrote articles for them, and also helped clarify various questions some of their staff writers needed to write about when they found 'odd' claims in other places. Thus the item may have been speculation on someone's part.
NS isn't an academic journal but a 'popular science' one. Its approach has also varied over the decades under different editors.
My first reaction was to ask Marcus Chown if he recalled this as he'd
worked for NS quite a lot. But that was more like the 1980s on, so probably before his time with NS. Their old editors, etc, have long moved on as
well. So we'd need a readable copy of the actual item to decide.
That said, my basic thought is that such a process would be likely to
extend over a far longer timescale than the changes the actual data show.
So would not explain what we have observed. Indeed, I'd have though astronomers would have been very active in looking at the claimed changes
if it were this fast. But I can't recall it popping up. If someone has a reliable source, please give a reference where it can be checked.
In article <5a1b7d849dnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
Good. So you can now try reading the book I suggested and we can take
it from the point when you've started to study and understand the
mountains of diverse evicence that support both 'natural' and man-made climate changes.
Sorry, not interested in your religion.
In article <5a1be79324bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <5a1b7d849dnoise@audiomisc.co.uk>, Jim Lesurf
Sorry, not interested in your religion.
LOL. :-)
The "religion" here is your rigid belief *about something you
refuse to read*.
On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 14:43:17 +0100, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
I do though reserve the right to point out the absolute stupidity of
Net zero.
Indeed. There are no absolute zeros in real life, only asymptotes, but
not everybody understands this.
Rod.
On 22/08/2022 11:14, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <tdu3cq$2e0gj$1@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 21/08/2022 13:32, Java Jive wrote:
On 21/08/2022 12:09, Indy Jess John wrote:
I have no intention of making an argument about it, but in the early >>>>> 1960s I was at school and I used to go to the school library and read >>>>> the magazines that I couldn't afford to buy. In one copy of the New
Scientist somewhere between 1963 and 1966 there was an article that
explained that the drift of the sun through the spiral arm was
gradually taking it out of an area containing interstellar dust unto >>>>> an area where the dust was very much reduced and this would
progressively provide slightly more radiant energy from the sun
reaching the Earth than had been the case for a couple of millennia
before.
You've made this claim at least twice before, but have never been able >>>> to verify it. Until you do, it just remains a claim.
Just because you dismiss what I remember reading doesn't make it untrue. >>> However, your reply is a fairly clear indication that the effect is
not built into the current models.
Agree with your first statement there. However without being able to read
the actual item in ye olde NS we don't know the full story of what it
said.
You second statement may simply mean it was examined and found not to
be a
factor for the timescales that concern humanity at present. And that what
references we've found don't mention it for that reason.
However NS often published 'speculative' articles about what *might* come
to pass or 'might' turn out to be true. Know this because I wrote
articles
for them, and also helped clarify various questions some of their staff
writers needed to write about when they found 'odd' claims in other
places.
Thus the item may have been speculation on someone's part.
NS isn't an academic journal but a 'popular science' one. Its approach
has
also varied over the decades under different editors.
My first reaction was to ask Marcus Chown if he recalled this as he'd
worked for NS quite a lot. But that was more like the 1980s on, so
probably
before his time with NS. Their old editors, etc, have long moved on as
well. So we'd need a readable copy of the actual item to decide.
That said, my basic thought is that such a process would be likely to
extend over a far longer timescale than the changes the actual data show.
So would not explain what we have observed. Indeed, I'd have though
astronomers would have been very active in looking at the claimed changes
if it were this fast. But I can't recall it popping up. If someone has a
reliable source, please give a reference where it can be checked.
I wonder if it was McCrea's work (picking up the old idea of Shapley).
That certainly made the pages of NS in the 1970s.
Mmm, yes in NS 1975. Not sure this link will work
<https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YGofxcUVVDwC&pg=PA695&dq=%22+spiral+arms%22+%22ice+ages%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjTjfHR0tz5AhVDZcAKHXtRCcgQ6AF6BAgEEAI#v=onepage&q=%22%20spiral%20arms%22%20%22ice%20ages%22&f=false>
I do wonder though if people are likely to seek funds for research on
the effect of external influences on the Earth's climate. The risk of attack from activists (and, sad to say, fellow academics) is real, and
the consequences potentially grave. One only has to look at the time it took to get CERN's CLOUD experiment set up (and the language when its
results were announced). In short, why work on something that could get
you "cancelled" before you begin?
That seems to be a more eloquent way than mine to say that he who pays
the piper calls the tune.
For an educated man you can be such an idiot.
For an educated man you can be such an idiot.
On 21/08/2022 18:57, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 14:43:17 +0100, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
I do though reserve the right to point out the absolute stupidity of
Net zero.
Indeed. There are no absolute zeros in real life, only asymptotes, but
not everybody understands this.
Rod.
I think that there is general acceptance that 0 degrees Kelvin is absolute.
Jim
When talking about things like "zero carbon" or "zero climate change"
perhaps we need to be clear whether we mean some measured quantity
itself or if we are really talking about the human impact upon it.
Climate change, for example, could go above or below some normalised
value that we've decided to count as zero change, but what would it mean
to talk about a "human impact" value of less than zero?
I wonder if it was McCrea's work (picking up the old idea of Shapley).
That certainly made the pages of NS in the 1970s.
Mmm, yes in NS 1975. Not sure this link will work
<https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=YGofxcUVVDwC&pg=PA695&dq=%22+spiral+arms%22+%22ice+ages%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjTjfHR0tz5AhVDZcAKHXtRCcgQ6AF6BAgEEAI#v=onepage&q=%22%20spiral%20arms%22%20%22ice%20ages%22&f=false>
I do wonder though if people are likely to seek funds for research on
the effect of external influences on the Earth's climate. The risk of
attack from activists (and, sad to say, fellow academics) is real, and
the consequences potentially grave.
I suspect what is meant is "a value close enough to zero that it is
well within the range to which the Earth's climate would adapt
leaving the temperatures, etc, much the same as if zero emissions
were the norm. i.e. allow the climate to drift back to the kind of
state that we'd have had if we weren't releasing lots of CO2.
In article <7h59ghp17ashra7anphu4eb6osqusc5ro6@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
When talking about things like "zero carbon" or "zero climate change"
perhaps we need to be clear whether we mean some measured quantity
itself or if we are really talking about the human impact upon it.
So far as I know/AIUI the term "Net Zero" refers to emissions produced by >human-driven processes. cf below.
Climate change, for example, could go above or below some normalised
value that we've decided to count as zero change, but what would it mean
to talk about a "human impact" value of less than zero?
Back in reality and away from hair-splitting, though, I suspect what is
meant is "a value close enough to zero that it is well within the range to >which the Earth'c climate would adapt leaving the temperatures, etc, much
the same as if zero emissions were the norm. i.e. allow the climate to
drift back to the kind of state that we'd have had if we weren't releasing >lots of CO2.
So in practice your hair-splitting is an amusing diversion from a serious >problem. Personally, I'd be more concerned about the problem, but humour is >always welcome. :-)
Jim
In article <5a1c915eaenoise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
I suspect what is meant is "a value close enough to zero that it is
well within the range to which the Earth's climate would adapt
leaving the temperatures, etc, much the same as if zero emissions
were the norm. i.e. allow the climate to drift back to the kind of
state that we'd have had if we weren't releasing lots of CO2.
Britain's CO2 output has been reduced and reduced and is now right
back to the same level as in 1888.
As far as I know, there were no
claims of global warming or climate change back then.
Why it is still necessary to destroy people's lives in Britain
in
order to reduce 1% (near F*** all) to zero when other countries with
far larger contributions are doing little or nothing or even
increasing their output?
We've done our bit of insanity.
It would be barking mad even if CO2 was the culprit, which it isn't.
But of course, this isn't really about alleged warming anyway.
Climate Communism !
In article <7h59ghp17ashra7anphu4eb6osqusc5ro6@4ax.com>, Roderick
Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
When talking about things like "zero carbon" or "zero climate change"
perhaps we need to be clear whether we mean some measured quantity
itself or if we are really talking about the human impact upon it.
So far as I know/AIUI the term "Net Zero" refers to emissions produced by human-driven processes. cf below.
In theory yes, but I said "in real life".
We might know where it is, but we can never reach it.
That link worked and it was an interesting article to read, but it
wasn't the one I read in the early 1960s. It adds a bit of information
that the 1960s one didn't explain. The 1960s one stated that leaving
the dust cloud would lead to warmer weather, but didn't explain why. The above article explains that gravitational capture of the dust by the
sun affects the sun's output, so it follows that reduced capture of
dust should also affect the sun's output.
On 21/08/2022 18:57, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 14:43:17 +0100, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
I do though reserve the right to point out the absolute stupidity of
Net zero.
Indeed. There are no absolute zeros in real life, only asymptotes, but
not everybody understands this.
Rod.
I think that there is general acceptance that 0 degrees Kelvin is
absolute.
On 23/08/2022 19:46, Bob Latham wrote:
For an educated man you can be such an idiot.
I've never noticed a correlation between the level of education a person
has attained and their idiocy.
much
the same as if zero emissions were the norm. i.e. allow the climate to
drift back to the kind of state that we'd have had if we weren't releasing lots of CO2.
In article <fgkbgh15dka9tljnc81eg40dsimtcihk52@4ax.com>, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
In theory yes, but I said "in real life".
We might know where it is, but we can never reach it.
Well, we can generate negative absolute temperatures. :-)
Admittedly, arranging zero becomes more a matter of how accurately you can measure in order to control the process. But this is true for many other quantities. e.g. A pen on your desk may not actually have zero velocity compared to the desk. Yet we tend to regard it as being static if it just seems to sit there.
JIm
In article <te394s$32iht$2@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 21/08/2022 18:57, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 14:43:17 +0100, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
I do though reserve the right to point out the absolute stupidity of
Net zero.
Indeed. There are no absolute zeros in real life, only asymptotes, but
not everybody understands this.
Rod.
I think that there is general acceptance that 0 degrees Kelvin is
absolute.
Also worth pointing out that we *can* generate negative absolute temperatures. I won't say how as yet and see if someone else here knows already. :-)
Jim
As I've pointed out, having the Solar System drift though dust
regions doesn't mean that dust penetrates against the Solar Wind
that easily. We'd need to see any later work to know more.
On 23/08/2022 18:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
much
the same as if zero emissions were the norm. i.e. allow the climate to
drift back to the kind of state that we'd have had if we weren't
releasing
lots of CO2.
I am not convinced that releasing lots of CO2 is the only way that
humans can affect the amount of CO2 in the air. Felling areas of
rainforest about the size of Wales for several years in a row as
Indonesia has done must cause a net increase by reducing the Earth's
ability to remove CO2 from the air.
On 23/08/2022 17:41, Jim Lesurf wrote:
As I've pointed out, having the Solar System drift though dust
regions doesn't mean that dust penetrates against the Solar Wind
that easily. We'd need to see any later work to know more.
There have been lots of links in this NG in a couple of threads, and I haven't got the time to go through them all to find them again, but
there was one that used a telescope in the Andes to show that there is a
dust cloud in the same orbit as the Earth, and another that showed that
the major impact of passing through interstellar dust was the
gravitational capture of that dust by the sun and the effect that had on
the level of insolation.
Both seemed well argued.
In article <te394s$32iht$2@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 21/08/2022 18:57, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 14:43:17 +0100, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
I do though reserve the right to point out the absolute stupidity of
Net zero.
Indeed. There are no absolute zeros in real life, only asymptotes, but
not everybody understands this.
Rod.
I think that there is general acceptance that 0 degrees Kelvin is
absolute.
Also worth pointing out that we *can* generate negative absolute temperatures. I won't say how as yet and see if someone else here knows already. :-)
Back in reality and away from hair-splitting, though, I suspect what is
meant is "a value close enough to zero that it is well within the range to which the Earth'c climate would adapt leaving the temperatures,
But even if the UK produced no CO2 whatsoever it would make hardly any difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
On 24/08/2022 10:31, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <te394s$32iht$2@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess JohnPass! I thought that 0 degrees Kelvin was the point where Brownian
<bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 21/08/2022 18:57, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 21 Aug 2022 14:43:17 +0100, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
I do though reserve the right to point out the absolute stupidity of >>>>> Net zero.
Indeed. There are no absolute zeros in real life, only asymptotes, but >>>> not everybody understands this.
Rod.
I think that there is general acceptance that 0 degrees Kelvin is
absolute.
Also worth pointing out that we *can* generate negative absolute
temperatures. I won't say how as yet and see if someone else here knows
already. :-)
Jim
Motion ceases.
In article <jmlgb9Fmi75U1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright ><wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
On 23/08/2022 19:46, Bob Latham wrote:
For an educated man you can be such an idiot.
I've never noticed a correlation between the level of education a person
has attained and their idiocy.
Nor me. There may be a correlation with a refusal to learn, though.
Jim
On 23/08/2022 18:10, Jim Lesurf wrote:
much the same as if zero emissions were the norm. i.e. allow the
climate to drift back to the kind of state that we'd have had if we
weren't releasing lots of CO2.
I am not convinced that releasing lots of CO2 is the only way that
humans can affect the amount of CO2 in the air. Felling areas of
rainforest about the size of Wales for several years in a row as
Indonesia has done must cause a net increase by reducing the Earth's
ability to remove CO2 from the air.
On 23/08/2022 17:41, Jim Lesurf wrote:
As I've pointed out, having the Solar System drift though dust regions doesn't mean that dust penetrates against the Solar Wind that easily.
We'd need to see any later work to know more.
There have been lots of links in this NG in a couple of threads, and I haven't got the time to go through them all to find them again, but
there was one that used a telescope in the Andes to show that there is a
dust cloud in the same orbit as the Earth
, and another that showed that the major impact of passing through interstellar dust was the gravitational capture of that dust by the sun
and the effect that had on the level of insolation.
Both seemed well argued.
But IIRC the original correlation of ice ages with passage through the
spiral arms did not stand up to newer and better data on the
distribution of gas and dust in the galaxy. That does not mean cosmic
dust plays no part in the climate, just that it ain't a simple "ice ages
flow from gross galactic structure".
grin>
Until someone comes along and points out that as the Earth is spinning, everything on the Earth has a velocity, and the pen on the desk, being slightly further from the Earth's core than the desk top, has a very
slightly faster velocity than the desk top.
I admit though that it is relatively static to a nearby observer (who if standing has their head with a greater velocity than their feet).
(I am not being serious, I just thought this thread would benefit from a
bit of levity. :-)
On Wed, 24 Aug 2022 20:49:22 +0100, Indy Jess John <bathwatchdog@OMITTHISgooglemail.com> wrote:
On 24/08/2022 10:31, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article <te394s$32iht$2@dont-email.me>, Indy Jess John
Also worth pointing out that we *can* generate negative absolutePass! I thought that 0 degrees Kelvin was the point where Brownian
temperatures. I won't say how as yet and see if someone else here
knows already. :-)
Jim
Motion ceases.
Well I guess you are going to get hundreds of Google search results to broaden the debate beytond all seriousness. I'll go and lie down!
Back in reality and away from hair-splitting, though, I suspect what
is meant is "a value close enough to zero that it is well within the
range to which the Earth'c climate would adapt leaving the
temperatures,
But even if the UK produced no CO2 whatsoever it would make hardly any difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
In article <jmnhl3F21gpU1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
But even if the UK produced no CO2 whatsoever it would make
hardly any difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Hinges on your definition of "hardly", but yes, if everyone else
carried on like before our acting alone would simply slightly slow
the rate of rise.
The snag in the UK is that Tory voters don't like to see
'windmills' spoil the view.
(Or, I suspect, the value of their shares in oil companies.)
In article <5a1d6f5346noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <jmnhl3F21gpU1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
But even if the UK produced no CO2 whatsoever it would make
hardly any difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Hinges on your definition of "hardly", but yes, if everyone else
carried on like before our acting alone would simply slightly slow
the rate of rise.
According to figures I've seen which I'm told are the IPCC' own
figures, a drop of 1% in man's CO2 from UK's FF burning (Net Zero)
would result in a 0.002C drop in temperature by 2100. Which even in
the unlikely event the unproven CO2 theory is correct would be
unmeasurable. >
It is also the case according to the Spectator that our CO2 output is
now down to the same level as 1857. Recently updated figure.
In article <5a1d6f5346noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <jmnhl3F21gpU1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
But even if the UK produced no CO2 whatsoever it would make
hardly any difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Hinges on your definition of "hardly", but yes, if everyone else
carried on like before our acting alone would simply slightly slow
the rate of rise.
According to figures I've seen which I'm told are the IPCC' own
figures,
a drop of 1% in man's CO2 from UK's FF burning (Net Zero)
would result in a 0.002C drop in temperature by 2100. Which even in
the unlikely event the unproven CO2 theory is correct would be
unmeasurable.
It is also the case according to the Spectator that our CO2 output is
now down to the same level as 1857. Recently updated figure.
Given those figures and the cost of Net zero to the poor, to industry
and to Britain's standard of living for decades to come,
I cannot see
how anyone rational and without 'another agenda' could possibly think
that Net zero was a sensible thing for the UK. All it can possibly
achieve is virtue signalling at an astronomical cost to the nation
especially the poor, remember them, the people socialists used to
care about?
The snag in the UK is that Tory voters don't like to see
'windmills' spoil the view.
What a slanted view, you should be a Newsnight presenter. Would it
not be more likely that anyone who appreciates the natural beauty of
the countryside in the UK would be very saddened by the monstrous
flying animal choppers.
(Or, I suspect, the value of their shares in oil companies.)
LOL. How many Tory voters as a percentage do think have shares in the
oil industry. Any nonsense you can come up with to make a snide
comment about people with a different view to you.
On 26/08/2022 11:48, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <5a1d6f5346noise@audiomisc.co.uk>,
Jim Lesurf <noise@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote:
In article <jmnhl3F21gpU1@mid.individual.net>, williamwright
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
But even if the UK produced no CO2 whatsoever it would make
hardly any difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Hinges on your definition of "hardly", but yes, if everyone else
carried on like before our acting alone would simply slightly slow
the rate of rise.
According to figures I've seen which I'm told are the IPCC' own
figures, a drop of 1% in man's CO2 from UK's FF burning (Net
Zero) would result in a 0.002C drop in temperature by 2100. Which
even in the unlikely event the unproven CO2 theory is correct
would be unmeasurable. > It is also the case according to the
Spectator that our CO2 output is now down to the same level as
1857. Recently updated figure.
That's all very happy news, but it is a bit disingenuous. We may
not do the amount of CO2-producing metal bashing industry here that
other countries do, but we still use the products of it. How
convenient it is that we don't count any of that in our own figures!
We're only 'clean' and 'non-polluting' because we've exported all
of our industry and encouraged others to pollute on our behalf to
produce what we consume. We should surely be taking responsibility
for our share of that, and stop pretending it's nothing to do with
us.
That maybe true but there is nothing we can do about that except stop
buying products from abroad like electric cars.
It's all a nonsense anyway. CO2 is plant food and essential to life,
and the planet's levels of CO2 are near the lowest they've ever been.
Man interfered just in time before CO2 was low enough for plant death.
CO2 is not a pollutant either, it is deranged to think it is. CO2 is
a political weapon of the left.
The snag in the UK is that Tory voters don't like to see 'windmills' spoil the view. (Or, I suspect, the value of their shares in oil companies.)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 129:22:39 |
| Calls: | 6,663 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,335,296 |
