On 30/09/2023 09:18, Mike Humphrey wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 20:44:53 +0100, David Wade wrote:
>> The are not exactly trumpeting this news. There is nothing on the
>> Openreach news pages about it. I can't find anything on the BT pages
>> about retaining copper...
>
> Openreach aren't trumpeting a lot of things, but the national switch-off
> of PSTN and move to fibre is a lot less comprehensive than the headlines
> would make it seem. The national stop-sell was 5th September 2023.
> Yesterday I ordered a PSTN line, despite the stop-sell, as none of the new
> services are available at the location. Apparently this is the situation
> until March 2024, when Openreach will actually stop selling PSTN lines -
> though I'll believe that when it happens.
>
> They're also got SOTAP - VoIP over exchange-based ASDL - listed in their
> service catalogue. I've yet to hear of anyone actually being offered this.
>
Well that will be a DSL router with a VOIP port on it. Or a nework
dongle that you plug into the LAN the does voip.

> And of course SOGEA is still being installed where FTTP isn't available -
> 70% of the UK by population, which is probably 90% by area.

Ahem . No probably the reverse. FTTP is being rolled out in uber rural
areas like me, because the population is all too far from the little
green cabinets. The urban areas all got FTTC years ago...

> It's not clear if Openreach are still adding FTTC cabinets or are going straight to FTTP
> in every area that doesn't yet have FTTP.
>
I would not be surprised if they can thereby convert a *large* number of
customers from ADSL, but all the low hanging fruit there has long gone.
Overall the drive is to roll out fibre, and go digital voice so they can
ditch telephone exchanges

converting the 'last three hundred yards' from copper to fibre is less
urgent as those customers already have high enough speeds to met the
gummints criteria.

--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 30/09/2023 12:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> I haven't looked back. Sometimes it glitches and there seems to be
> strange delays on opening connections but once open the speed is as
> promised.
> I've not had to call 'support' once...and that I think is a great driver
> for BT. If they send out preconfigured routers there is nothing to
> really go wrong

Spade Fade / JCB is often the problem on underground cables. Usually
when we reported a fault, BT would be asking around if anyone had seen
any JCBs working along the route (though in one case it was Red Arrows
that caused the fault!).

Also once saw when BT had run a 'temporary' self-burying cable and
someone cutting logs with a chain saw cut the cable.

JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

{...}
> BT would be asking around if anyone had seen
> any JCBs working along the route (though in one case it was Red Arrows
> that caused the fault!).

I knew they practiced low flying - but not usually below ground level.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On 30/09/2023 22:42, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> I knew they practiced low flying - but not usually below ground level.

They were practising before the season and I think moving from
Machrihanish to Lossiemouth.

One of the ground crew was given a ride in the back seat.

It seems to have taken the wrong valley and without low flying radar
they did not see the 400(?) KV power line, hit it and lost part of a
wing but remained in the air and diverted to Dalcross. The chap in the
back seat ejected.

The 400 KV line dropped onto a 33 KV line below it, the surges blew up
the PO cable that was under.

I was about thirty miles away in the transmitter hall, there was a loud
bang and flash. The line termination panel was a bit scorched and I
think some of the line amplifiers failed.

We had a system where we could remotely reverse lines so I had to go and
plug up a feed from the opposite direction to maintain the services.

BT said they had had lots of alarms and were ringing around asking if
anyone had seen any JCBs then they started to get reports of something
happening with an aircraft.

The fallen cable started a fire on the hillside so fire brigade were
called out - one fireman was given a bronze survival knife by the chap
who ejected.

On 30/09/2023 23:13, JMB99 wrote:
> On 30/09/2023 22:42, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>> I knew they practiced low flying - but not usually below ground level.
>
>
> They were practising before the season and I think moving from
> Machrihanish to Lossiemouth.
>
> One of the ground crew was given a ride in the back seat.
>
> It seems to have taken the wrong valley and without low flying radar
> they did not see the 400(?) KV power line, hit it and lost part of a
> wing but remained in the air and diverted to Dalcross.  The chap in the
> back seat ejected.
>
> The 400 KV line dropped onto a 33 KV line below it, the surges blew up
> the PO cable that was under.
>
> I was about thirty miles away in the transmitter hall, there was a loud
> bang and flash.  The line termination panel was a bit scorched and I
> think some of the line amplifiers failed.
>
> We had a system where we could remotely reverse lines so I had to go and
> plug up a feed from the opposite direction to maintain the services.
>
> BT said they had had lots of alarms and were ringing around asking if
> anyone had seen any JCBs then they started to get reports of something
> happening with an aircraft.
>
> The fallen cable started a fire on the hillside so fire brigade were
> called out - one fireman was given a bronze survival knife by the chap
> who ejected.

When I worked in Johannesburg, a good thunderstorm would take out
hundreds of units of anything electronic connected to the lines. You
could hear the phones tinkle due to induced line voltages every time
there was a nearby strike.

At least fibre to the premises is proof against that...

--
The New Left are the people they warned you about.

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 30/09/2023 23:13, JMB99 wrote:
> > On 30/09/2023 22:42, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> >> I knew they practiced low flying - but not usually below ground level.
> >
> >
> > They were practising before the season and I think moving from
> > Machrihanish to Lossiemouth.
> >
> > One of the ground crew was given a ride in the back seat.
> >
> > It seems to have taken the wrong valley and without low flying radar
> > they did not see the 400(?) KV power line, hit it and lost part of a
> > wing but remained in the air and diverted to Dalcross.  The chap in the
> > back seat ejected.
> >
> > The 400 KV line dropped onto a 33 KV line below it, the surges blew up
> > the PO cable that was under.
> >
> > I was about thirty miles away in the transmitter hall, there was a loud
> > bang and flash.  The line termination panel was a bit scorched and I
> > think some of the line amplifiers failed.
> >
> > We had a system where we could remotely reverse lines so I had to go and
> > plug up a feed from the opposite direction to maintain the services.
> >
> > BT said they had had lots of alarms and were ringing around asking if
> > anyone had seen any JCBs then they started to get reports of something
> > happening with an aircraft.
> >
> > The fallen cable started a fire on the hillside so fire brigade were
> > called out - one fireman was given a bronze survival knife by the chap
> > who ejected.
>
> When I worked in Johannesburg, a good thunderstorm would take out
> hundreds of units of anything electronic connected to the lines. You
> could hear the phones tinkle due to induced line voltages every time
> there was a nearby strike.
>
> At least fibre to the premises is proof against that...

....but the mains isn't.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On 01/10/2023 10:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> When I worked in Johannesburg, a good thunderstorm would take out
> hundreds of units of anything electronic  connected to the lines. You
> could hear the phones tinkle due to induced line voltages every time
> there was a nearby strike.

There was once a strike near my house, I knew some people nearby who had
damage but none at my house.

But I am sure my smoke detector all went off briefly - they were all
linked together (years before that became compulsory).

We had one strike at work that spot welded a metal equipment trolley to
a wall heater that it was touching.

Then there was Eitshal of course .....

> There was once a strike near my house, I knew some people nearby
> who had damage but none at my house.

There was a lightning strike a few doors away two weeks ago, my CCTV caught a
beautiful orange flash and everyone was woken up by the crack, two fire engines,
although the only actual damage was a wooden finial blown off the roof and
landed on a car below, there was some scorching around the attic window.

We have overhead telephone cables, but the hit house was the next pole down the
road. Virgin Media seemed to be unaffected (four neighbours I know), FTTC went
down for 10 minutes presumably due to an overload, but Openreach said later no
alarms were triggered by the DSLAM.

My FTTC came back at lower speed than normal and died for a few hours three
days later before coming back with 300K upload speed at which point Openreach
was called and swapped my line onto a different DSLAM port to get the speed
back. Another neighbour had a blown router which BT replaced, a third just
complained of slow speed, not sure what Sky did. There were a lot of Openreach
and VM vans in road that week so I guess others had problems as well.

Angus

On 26/09/2023 19:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> System X was in the 1980s
>
> All digital past the exchange.

There was a mixture of equipment in many UK telephone exchanges until
the mid 90s.

Some lines connected to new System X or similar digital equipment,
others to ancient analogue equipment that didn't even accept DTMF dialling.

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

On 01/10/2023 12:30, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 30/09/2023 23:13, JMB99 wrote:
>>> On 30/09/2023 22:42, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>>> I knew they practiced low flying - but not usually below ground level.
>>>
>>>
>>> They were practising before the season and I think moving from
>>> Machrihanish to Lossiemouth.
>>>
>>> One of the ground crew was given a ride in the back seat.
>>>
>>> It seems to have taken the wrong valley and without low flying radar
>>> they did not see the 400(?) KV power line, hit it and lost part of a
>>> wing but remained in the air and diverted to Dalcross.  The chap in the
>>> back seat ejected.
>>>
>>> The 400 KV line dropped onto a 33 KV line below it, the surges blew up
>>> the PO cable that was under.
>>>
>>> I was about thirty miles away in the transmitter hall, there was a loud
>>> bang and flash.  The line termination panel was a bit scorched and I
>>> think some of the line amplifiers failed.
>>>
>>> We had a system where we could remotely reverse lines so I had to go and
>>> plug up a feed from the opposite direction to maintain the services.
>>>
>>> BT said they had had lots of alarms and were ringing around asking if
>>> anyone had seen any JCBs then they started to get reports of something
>>> happening with an aircraft.
>>>
>>> The fallen cable started a fire on the hillside so fire brigade were
>>> called out - one fireman was given a bronze survival knife by the chap
>>> who ejected.
>>
>> When I worked in Johannesburg, a good thunderstorm would take out
>> hundreds of units of anything electronic connected to the lines. You
>> could hear the phones tinkle due to induced line voltages every time
>> there was a nearby strike.
>>
>> At least fibre to the premises is proof against that...
>
> ...but the mains isn't.
>

No, especially if it comes in overhead.

--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On 01/10/2023 14:28, JMB99 wrote:
> On 01/10/2023 10:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> When I worked in Johannesburg, a good thunderstorm would take out
>> hundreds of units of anything electronic  connected to the lines. You
>> could hear the phones tinkle due to induced line voltages every time
>> there was a nearby strike.
>
>
>
> There was once a strike near my house, I knew some people nearby who had
> damage but none at my house.
>
> But I am sure my smoke detector all went off briefly - they were all
> linked together (years before that became compulsory).
>
> We had one strike at work that spot welded a metal equipment trolley to
> a wall heater that it was touching.
>
> Then there was Eitshal of course .....

I had a strike that hit the drop wire to my phone.
phone line a smear of carbon on the concrete drive
Lost a colour TV completely.
Lost a US robotics modem completely (replaced FOC by US robotics)
Lost the serial parallel card it was plugged into.
Lost an HP printer, or would have done because when the tech came to fix
it he wanted to charge me more for input board and one other board than
the printer cost. He said that was all he could do unless it was under
warranty (which it was) but not against lightning strikes. In which case
it would be free. I said 'couldn't you make it free then?' and he did.
Lost some CMOS chips in a very expensive parallel tracking record deck
Blew a socket out of the wall.
Burnt holes through a carpet where I had a mains lead running under it
Caused the landlords insurers to demand a full rewire.

My Irish neighbour in other half of the semi-detached cottage, on being
queried said 'I do recall there might have been a bit of a bang, now, to
be sure'

When the cat killed a stoat I got the stiffened corpse and strapped it
to his car aerial . I think I had just read 'sometimes a great notion'.

He never noticed it for weeks.

Great lad. Biochemist I think, specialising in green slime and what you
could make with it.

--
Truth welcomes investigation because truth knows investigation will lead
to converts. It is deception that uses all the other techniques.

On 27 Sep 2023 10:13, Tweed wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 27/09/2023 10:13, JMB99 wrote:
>>> On 26/09/2023 21:07, Marco Moock wrote:
>>>> It is the more comfortable solution for them. Instead they would need
>>>> to migrate hundred thousands of customers to VoIP. That will probably
>>>> make many of them angry because they don't understand the reason.
>>>
>>>
>>> It will make many angry because they have a telephone that has worked
>>> perfectly well for years and don't see why they should change when no
>>> improvement to them.
>>>
>> They will be able to pug their old phone into a port on a BT NTU (FTTP)
>> or VDSL (FTTC) router and will never notice the difference expxept line
>> quality will be way better
>>
>>> If BT can ensure their existing telephone continues working even when
>>> the electricity supply is lost then they will not mind.
>>>
>> with FTTP its battery backup on the NTU - optional and rather expensive
>> extra.
>>
>>
>>
>
> OpenReach and the Altnets need to sit down together to design a proper
> standardised backup battery system. As I see it, there is a need for two
> Lithium Ion battery packs - one that kicks in immediately to cover short
> term power outages and one that only activates when a button is pressed.
> The latter can be used to power up the equipment when that fabled emergency
> call needs to be made during a prolonged outage. Easily doable for around
> £100 or less. It's a lot cheaper than trying to continue with a 50V low
> voltage power distribution network, which is what keeping the current
> system boils down to.
>

But then you have to have a monitoring system to determine when the
battery/batteries need replacing or the system has a fault.

And needing to press a button isn't helpful if the UPS is there to
support a "carecall" type system.

Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
> On 27 Sep 2023 10:13, Tweed wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 27/09/2023 10:13, JMB99 wrote:
>>>> On 26/09/2023 21:07, Marco Moock wrote:
>>>>> It is the more comfortable solution for them. Instead they would need
>>>>> to migrate hundred thousands of customers to VoIP. That will probably
>>>>> make many of them angry because they don't understand the reason.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It will make many angry because they have a telephone that has worked
>>>> perfectly well for years and don't see why they should change when no
>>>> improvement to them.
>>>>
>>> They will be able to pug their old phone into a port on a BT NTU (FTTP)
>>> or VDSL (FTTC) router and will never notice the difference expxept line
>>> quality will be way better
>>>
>>>> If BT can ensure their existing telephone continues working even when
>>>> the electricity supply is lost then they will not mind.
>>>>
>>> with FTTP its battery backup on the NTU - optional and rather expensive
>>> extra.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> OpenReach and the Altnets need to sit down together to design a proper
>> standardised backup battery system. As I see it, there is a need for two
>> Lithium Ion battery packs - one that kicks in immediately to cover short
>> term power outages and one that only activates when a button is pressed.
>> The latter can be used to power up the equipment when that fabled emergency
>> call needs to be made during a prolonged outage. Easily doable for around
>> £100 or less. It's a lot cheaper than trying to continue with a 50V low
>> voltage power distribution network, which is what keeping the current
>> system boils down to.
>>
>
> But then you have to have a monitoring system to determine when the
> battery/batteries need replacing or the system has a fault.
>
> And needing to press a button isn't helpful if the UPS is there to
> support a "carecall" type system.
>
>

Fall alarms already come with backup batteries. It’s not much of a leap to
increase the battery capacity and to include battery condition monitoring.
Whatever way people want to argue it, a copper low voltage distribution
system is not going to continue as there won’t be the revenue to support
it.

On 14 Oct 2023 18:02, Tweed wrote:
> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>> On 27 Sep 2023 10:13, Tweed wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 27/09/2023 10:13, JMB99 wrote:
>>>>> On 26/09/2023 21:07, Marco Moock wrote:
>>>>>> It is the more comfortable solution for them. Instead they would need
>>>>>> to migrate hundred thousands of customers to VoIP. That will probably
>>>>>> make many of them angry because they don't understand the reason.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It will make many angry because they have a telephone that has worked
>>>>> perfectly well for years and don't see why they should change when no
>>>>> improvement to them.
>>>>>
>>>> They will be able to pug their old phone into a port on a BT NTU (FTTP)
>>>> or VDSL (FTTC) router and will never notice the difference expxept line
>>>> quality will be way better
>>>>
>>>>> If BT can ensure their existing telephone continues working even when
>>>>> the electricity supply is lost then they will not mind.
>>>>>
>>>> with FTTP its battery backup on the NTU - optional and rather expensive
>>>> extra.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> OpenReach and the Altnets need to sit down together to design a proper
>>> standardised backup battery system. As I see it, there is a need for two
>>> Lithium Ion battery packs - one that kicks in immediately to cover short
>>> term power outages and one that only activates when a button is pressed.
>>> The latter can be used to power up the equipment when that fabled emergency
>>> call needs to be made during a prolonged outage. Easily doable for around
>>> £100 or less. It's a lot cheaper than trying to continue with a 50V low
>>> voltage power distribution network, which is what keeping the current
>>> system boils down to.
>>>
>>
>> But then you have to have a monitoring system to determine when the
>> battery/batteries need replacing or the system has a fault.
>>
>> And needing to press a button isn't helpful if the UPS is there to
>> support a "carecall" type system.
>>
>>
>
> Fall alarms already come with backup batteries. It's not much of a leap to
> increase the battery capacity and to include battery condition monitoring.
> Whatever way people want to argue it, a copper low voltage distribution
> system is not going to continue as there won't be the revenue to support
> it.

But if the "phone line" isn't working, it doesn't really matter if the
alarm itself has batteries in it.

On 14/10/2023 19:02, Tweed wrote:
> Whatever way people want to argue it, a copper low voltage distribution
> system is not going to continue as there won’t be the revenue to support it.

I agree 100%.
Like it or not the twitter generation are committed to mobile phones and
fondleslabs and most would not have a landline except to get broadband
and many are not even bothering with that, or a laptop or a desktop
computer. Google manages all their data in a cloud.
Once fibre comes in there will be no driver to retain a copper line that
a large battery in the premises could duplicate at someone else's expense.

--
The higher up the mountainside
The greener grows the grass.
The higher up the monkey climbs
The more he shows his arse.

Traditional

On 15/10/2023 12:04, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
> On 14 Oct 2023 18:02, Tweed wrote:
>> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>>> On 27 Sep 2023 10:13, Tweed wrote:
>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 27/09/2023 10:13, JMB99 wrote:
>>>>>> On 26/09/2023 21:07, Marco Moock wrote:
>>>>>>> It is the more comfortable solution for them. Instead they would need
>>>>>>> to migrate hundred thousands of customers to VoIP. That will probably
>>>>>>> make many of them angry because they don't understand the reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It will make many angry because they have a telephone that has worked
>>>>>> perfectly well for years and don't see why they should change when no
>>>>>> improvement to them.
>>>>>>
>>>>> They will be able to pug their old phone into a port on a BT NTU (FTTP)
>>>>> or VDSL (FTTC) router and will never notice the difference expxept line
>>>>> quality will be way better
>>>>>
>>>>>> If BT can ensure their existing telephone continues working even when
>>>>>> the electricity supply is lost then they will not mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>> with FTTP its battery backup on the NTU - optional and rather expensive
>>>>> extra.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OpenReach and the Altnets need to sit down together to design a proper
>>>> standardised backup battery system. As I see it, there is a need for two
>>>> Lithium Ion battery packs - one that kicks in immediately to cover short
>>>> term power outages and one that only activates when a button is pressed.
>>>> The latter can be used to power up the equipment when that fabled emergency
>>>> call needs to be made during a prolonged outage. Easily doable for around
>>>> £100 or less. It's a lot cheaper than trying to continue with a 50V low
>>>> voltage power distribution network, which is what keeping the current
>>>> system boils down to.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But then you have to have a monitoring system to determine when the
>>> battery/batteries need replacing or the system has a fault.
>>>
>>> And needing to press a button isn't helpful if the UPS is there to
>>> support a "carecall" type system.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Fall alarms already come with backup batteries. It's not much of a leap to
>> increase the battery capacity and to include battery condition monitoring.
>> Whatever way people want to argue it, a copper low voltage distribution
>> system is not going to continue as there won't be the revenue to support
>> it.
>
> But if the "phone line" isn't working, it doesn't really matter if the
> alarm itself has batteries in it.
>
>
That depends on how it connects

--
In a Time of Universal Deceit, Telling the Truth Is a Revolutionary Act.

- George Orwell

Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
> On 14 Oct 2023 18:02, Tweed wrote:
>> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>>> On 27 Sep 2023 10:13, Tweed wrote:
>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 27/09/2023 10:13, JMB99 wrote:
>>>>>> On 26/09/2023 21:07, Marco Moock wrote:
>>>>>>> It is the more comfortable solution for them. Instead they would need
>>>>>>> to migrate hundred thousands of customers to VoIP. That will probably
>>>>>>> make many of them angry because they don't understand the reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It will make many angry because they have a telephone that has worked
>>>>>> perfectly well for years and don't see why they should change when no
>>>>>> improvement to them.
>>>>>>
>>>>> They will be able to pug their old phone into a port on a BT NTU (FTTP)
>>>>> or VDSL (FTTC) router and will never notice the difference expxept line
>>>>> quality will be way better
>>>>>
>>>>>> If BT can ensure their existing telephone continues working even when
>>>>>> the electricity supply is lost then they will not mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>> with FTTP its battery backup on the NTU - optional and rather expensive
>>>>> extra.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OpenReach and the Altnets need to sit down together to design a proper
>>>> standardised backup battery system. As I see it, there is a need for two
>>>> Lithium Ion battery packs - one that kicks in immediately to cover short
>>>> term power outages and one that only activates when a button is pressed.
>>>> The latter can be used to power up the equipment when that fabled emergency
>>>> call needs to be made during a prolonged outage. Easily doable for around
>>>> £100 or less. It's a lot cheaper than trying to continue with a 50V low
>>>> voltage power distribution network, which is what keeping the current
>>>> system boils down to.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But then you have to have a monitoring system to determine when the
>>> battery/batteries need replacing or the system has a fault.
>>>
>>> And needing to press a button isn't helpful if the UPS is there to
>>> support a "carecall" type system.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Fall alarms already come with backup batteries. It's not much of a leap to
>> increase the battery capacity and to include battery condition monitoring.
>> Whatever way people want to argue it, a copper low voltage distribution
>> system is not going to continue as there won't be the revenue to support
>> it.
>
> But if the "phone line" isn't working, it doesn't really matter if the
> alarm itself has batteries in it.
>
>
>

There will be fall alarm products that provide power to the router/ONT.
It’s a soluble problem. However, my guess is most will migrate to a mobile
solution, possibly with a multi network SIM.
Finland scrapped copper lines in most areas a number of years ago, and the
world hasn’t come to an end there.

On 14/10/2023 19:02, Tweed wrote:
> Fall alarms already come with backup batteries. It’s not much of a leap to
> increase the battery capacity and to include battery condition monitoring.
> Whatever way people want to argue it, a copper low voltage distribution
> system is not going to continue as there won’t be the revenue to support
> it.
My understanding was that social alarms were moving towards using mobile
networks, as Digital Voice (VoIP) is not necessarily compatible with
analogue modems and the protocols they used to use, as well as the lack
of backup power, and probably also that, at the time of the redesign,
for this, mobile coverage was much better than when the previous
generation was designed. Also I suspect that landlineless households
are ageing into the target user base.

David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
> On 14/10/2023 19:02, Tweed wrote:
>> Fall alarms already come with backup batteries. It’s not much of a leap to
>> increase the battery capacity and to include battery condition monitoring.
>> Whatever way people want to argue it, a copper low voltage distribution
>> system is not going to continue as there won’t be the revenue to support
>> it.
>
> My understanding was that social alarms were moving towards using mobile
> networks, as Digital Voice (VoIP) is not necessarily compatible with
> analogue modems and the protocols they used to use, as well as the lack
> of backup power, and probably also that, at the time of the redesign,
> for this, mobile coverage was much better than when the previous
> generation was designed. Also I suspect that landlineless households
> are ageing into the target user base.
>

It’s not beyond the bounds of possibility to use satellites as a reserve
communication channel in the future. Newer iPhones can already send
emergency messages to satellites and Starlink is claiming direct handset to
satellite comms in the near future. Obviously a clear view of the sky will
be needed.

On 15/10/2023 12:19, Tweed wrote:
> Finland scrapped copper lines in most areas a number of years ago, and
> the world hasn’t come to an end there.

That of course is a matter of opinion.
--
“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established
authorities are wrong.”

― Voltaire, The Age of Louis XIV

On 15/10/2023 13:21, Tweed wrote:
> It’s not beyond the bounds of possibility to use satellites as a reserve
> communication channel in the future. Newer iPhones can already send
> emergency messages to satellites and Starlink is claiming direct handset
> to satellite comms in the near future. Obviously a clear view of the sky
> will be needed.

Not a lot of use for fall alarms as most will be likely to be indoors.

On 15 Oct 2023 11:19, Tweed wrote:
> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>> On 14 Oct 2023 18:02, Tweed wrote:
>>> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>>>> On 27 Sep 2023 10:13, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/09/2023 10:13, JMB99 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 26/09/2023 21:07, Marco Moock wrote:
>>>>>>>> It is the more comfortable solution for them. Instead they would need
>>>>>>>> to migrate hundred thousands of customers to VoIP. That will probably
>>>>>>>> make many of them angry because they don't understand the reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It will make many angry because they have a telephone that has worked
>>>>>>> perfectly well for years and don't see why they should change when no
>>>>>>> improvement to them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> They will be able to pug their old phone into a port on a BT NTU (FTTP)
>>>>>> or VDSL (FTTC) router and will never notice the difference expxept line
>>>>>> quality will be way better
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If BT can ensure their existing telephone continues working even when
>>>>>>> the electricity supply is lost then they will not mind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> with FTTP its battery backup on the NTU - optional and rather expensive
>>>>>> extra.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> OpenReach and the Altnets need to sit down together to design a proper
>>>>> standardised backup battery system. As I see it, there is a need for two
>>>>> Lithium Ion battery packs - one that kicks in immediately to cover short
>>>>> term power outages and one that only activates when a button is pressed.
>>>>> The latter can be used to power up the equipment when that fabled emergency
>>>>> call needs to be made during a prolonged outage. Easily doable for around
>>>>> £100 or less. It's a lot cheaper than trying to continue with a 50V low
>>>>> voltage power distribution network, which is what keeping the current
>>>>> system boils down to.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But then you have to have a monitoring system to determine when the
>>>> battery/batteries need replacing or the system has a fault.
>>>>
>>>> And needing to press a button isn't helpful if the UPS is there to
>>>> support a "carecall" type system.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Fall alarms already come with backup batteries. It's not much of a leap to
>>> increase the battery capacity and to include battery condition monitoring.
>>> Whatever way people want to argue it, a copper low voltage distribution
>>> system is not going to continue as there won't be the revenue to support
>>> it.
>>
>> But if the "phone line" isn't working, it doesn't really matter if the
>> alarm itself has batteries in it.
>>
>>
>>
>
> There will be fall alarm products that provide power to the router/ONT.
> It's a soluble problem. However, my guess is most will migrate to a mobile
> solution, possibly with a multi network SIM.

Doesn't work where there isn't a mobile signal.

JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 15/10/2023 13:21, Tweed wrote:
>> It’s not beyond the bounds of possibility to use satellites as a reserve
>> communication channel in the future. Newer iPhones can already send
>> emergency messages to satellites and Starlink is claiming direct handset
>> to satellite comms in the near future. Obviously a clear view of the sky
>> will be needed.
>
>
> Not a lot of use for fall alarms as most will be likely to be indoors.
>
>
>

Not if the base station has an attached outside antenna. After all, we’ve
done it with TV aerials for years.

Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
> On 15 Oct 2023 11:19, Tweed wrote:
>> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>>> On 14 Oct 2023 18:02, Tweed wrote:
>>>> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 27 Sep 2023 10:13, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 27/09/2023 10:13, JMB99 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 26/09/2023 21:07, Marco Moock wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It is the more comfortable solution for them. Instead they would need
>>>>>>>>> to migrate hundred thousands of customers to VoIP. That will probably
>>>>>>>>> make many of them angry because they don't understand the reason.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It will make many angry because they have a telephone that has worked
>>>>>>>> perfectly well for years and don't see why they should change when no
>>>>>>>> improvement to them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They will be able to pug their old phone into a port on a BT NTU (FTTP)
>>>>>>> or VDSL (FTTC) router and will never notice the difference expxept line
>>>>>>> quality will be way better
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If BT can ensure their existing telephone continues working even when
>>>>>>>> the electricity supply is lost then they will not mind.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> with FTTP its battery backup on the NTU - optional and rather expensive
>>>>>>> extra.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OpenReach and the Altnets need to sit down together to design a proper
>>>>>> standardised backup battery system. As I see it, there is a need for two
>>>>>> Lithium Ion battery packs - one that kicks in immediately to cover short
>>>>>> term power outages and one that only activates when a button is pressed.
>>>>>> The latter can be used to power up the equipment when that fabled emergency
>>>>>> call needs to be made during a prolonged outage. Easily doable for around
>>>>>> £100 or less. It's a lot cheaper than trying to continue with a 50V low
>>>>>> voltage power distribution network, which is what keeping the current
>>>>>> system boils down to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But then you have to have a monitoring system to determine when the
>>>>> battery/batteries need replacing or the system has a fault.
>>>>>
>>>>> And needing to press a button isn't helpful if the UPS is there to
>>>>> support a "carecall" type system.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fall alarms already come with backup batteries. It's not much of a leap to
>>>> increase the battery capacity and to include battery condition monitoring.
>>>> Whatever way people want to argue it, a copper low voltage distribution
>>>> system is not going to continue as there won't be the revenue to support
>>>> it.
>>>
>>> But if the "phone line" isn't working, it doesn't really matter if the
>>> alarm itself has batteries in it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There will be fall alarm products that provide power to the router/ONT.
>> It's a soluble problem. However, my guess is most will migrate to a mobile
>> solution, possibly with a multi network SIM.
>
> Doesn't work where there isn't a mobile signal.
>
In which case a battery backed solution for the ONT/router will be found,
or possibly Sat comms.

On 15 Oct 2023 17:19, Tweed wrote:
> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>> On 15 Oct 2023 11:19, Tweed wrote:
>>> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>>>> On 14 Oct 2023 18:02, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 27 Sep 2023 10:13, Tweed wrote:
>>>>>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 27/09/2023 10:13, JMB99 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 26/09/2023 21:07, Marco Moock wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> It is the more comfortable solution for them. Instead they would need
>>>>>>>>>> to migrate hundred thousands of customers to VoIP. That will probably
>>>>>>>>>> make many of them angry because they don't understand the reason.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It will make many angry because they have a telephone that has worked
>>>>>>>>> perfectly well for years and don't see why they should change when no
>>>>>>>>> improvement to them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They will be able to pug their old phone into a port on a BT NTU (FTTP)
>>>>>>>> or VDSL (FTTC) router and will never notice the difference expxept line
>>>>>>>> quality will be way better
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If BT can ensure their existing telephone continues working even when
>>>>>>>>> the electricity supply is lost then they will not mind.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> with FTTP its battery backup on the NTU - optional and rather expensive
>>>>>>>> extra.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OpenReach and the Altnets need to sit down together to design a proper
>>>>>>> standardised backup battery system. As I see it, there is a need for two
>>>>>>> Lithium Ion battery packs - one that kicks in immediately to cover short
>>>>>>> term power outages and one that only activates when a button is pressed.
>>>>>>> The latter can be used to power up the equipment when that fabled emergency
>>>>>>> call needs to be made during a prolonged outage. Easily doable for around
>>>>>>> £100 or less. It's a lot cheaper than trying to continue with a 50V low
>>>>>>> voltage power distribution network, which is what keeping the current
>>>>>>> system boils down to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But then you have to have a monitoring system to determine when the
>>>>>> battery/batteries need replacing or the system has a fault.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And needing to press a button isn't helpful if the UPS is there to
>>>>>> support a "carecall" type system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Fall alarms already come with backup batteries. It's not much of a leap to
>>>>> increase the battery capacity and to include battery condition monitoring.
>>>>> Whatever way people want to argue it, a copper low voltage distribution
>>>>> system is not going to continue as there won't be the revenue to support
>>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>> But if the "phone line" isn't working, it doesn't really matter if the
>>>> alarm itself has batteries in it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> There will be fall alarm products that provide power to the router/ONT.
>>> It's a soluble problem. However, my guess is most will migrate to a mobile
>>> solution, possibly with a multi network SIM.
>>
>> Doesn't work where there isn't a mobile signal.
>>
> In which case a battery backed solution for the ONT/router will be found,
> or possibly Sat comms.

The thread had started discussing a short battery to bridge short power
intervals and then a longer duration one activated by pushing a button.
I pointed out that a button is less usable for someone with a "care"
alarm.

So we are back to the start where we were discussing battery boxes and
wondering how to do things like health monitoring of the batteries.

Now is perhaps the time to reflect that, to get reasonable endurance we
need more batteries, rather than more VA. So, to get 4-5 hours will be
quite a big box if going with the traditional lead-acid PSU. Newer
battery technology will help but will still require monitoring.