On 17/12/2023 15:21, Tweed wrote:
> Why should the phone companies pay? Fall alarm systems are usually paid for
> by the end user.

Not pay for the fall alarms but pay to ensure that it continues to work
over their telephone network. I believe other users are being supplied
with a router etc that their existing telephone will connect to and
continue to work.

Obviously an alarm system has to continue to work with the mains power
off so companies would probably have found another solution if they had
know that the telecom companies were going to remove this essential
feature of their system.

On 17/12/2023 16:21, Theo wrote:
> I wonder when it'll become sensible for everyone vulnerable to have a solar
> panel and a small battery. Size it so that even in the depths of winter it
> would provide enough power to keep critical comms going, and maybe mount the
> panel vertically (south/east/west facing) so it doesn't collect snow.

Just needs adequate battery capacity to continue to run for a reasonable
time, It would need a largish solar panel to maintain during the short
daylight in winter - just look at the ones used on other installations.

On 17/12/2023 16:46, Tweed wrote:
> Because they wanted to carry on supplying you with gas. Telephone companies
> don’t exist as social services. We have Social Services for that.

Telecom companies have responsibilities under the Universal Supply
Asreements (or whatever they are called).

As with gas, there might be complications getting a supply or connection
to a difficult location but one it is there then it must remain working.

A friend used to have a cottage several miles from a public road, it had
had a telephone for years which regularly failed but GPO / BT had to
repair which they did.

We had one site at work that was miles from a public road, similarly the
telephones regularly failed but GPO / BT had to fix them. Eventually
they put in VHF link then upgraded to a 19 GHz link though there might
have been an ulterior motive because they were able to put other users
on it!

On 17/12/2023 17:30, Theo wrote:
> You'd keep the battery inside, so if it gets so cold as not to charge then
> you have other problems. You might get down to freezing inside during a
> week's power cut, but even then you'll get some degree of power during
> daylight hours.

Most systems tend to have a combination of solar panel and small wind
turbine.

JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 17/12/2023 15:21, Tweed wrote:
>> Why should the phone companies pay? Fall alarm systems are usually paid for
>> by the end user.
>
>
> Not pay for the fall alarms but pay to ensure that it continues to work
> over their telephone network. I believe other users are being supplied
> with a router etc that their existing telephone will connect to and
> continue to work.
>
> Obviously an alarm system has to continue to work with the mains power
> off so companies would probably have found another solution if they had
> know that the telecom companies were going to remove this essential
> feature of their system.
>
>
>

Fall alarm vendors have known for a number of years that this was going to
happen. It’s not news within the industry.

On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 09:23:09 -0000 (UTC)
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

> Davey <davey@example.invalid> wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 08:56:00 +0000
> > David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> Looks like OFCOM has acted:-
> >>
> >> https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2023/12/major-uk-home-phone-providers-commit-to-protect-vulnerable-users.html
> >>
> >> https://tinyurl.com/2yrj348j <short verion>
> >
> > Ofcom must have read my OP !!!!!!
> >
>
> If you read the charter carefully there’s lots of get outs. Better
> than nothing though. Fall alarm base stations themselves are battery
> backed, but that probably won’t last more than a day (my mother’s was
> returned after her death, so I can’t easily check)
>

My wife had a watch that contacted some base station somewhere. I had
to make a checking call every so often. The quality of the inbuilt
loudspeaker amazed me. I assume that it worked just like a mobile
'phone.
Unfortunately, her dementia meant that she had no idea how to use it.
Then it became irrelevant.

--
Davey.

On 18/12/2023 10:48, Tweed wrote:
> Fall alarm vendors have known for a number of years that this was going to
> happen. It’s not news within the industry.

And in discussion areas like here, seems that (as usual) council
officials and politicians who have not been listening.

And perhaps the telecom companies were hoping to get it done before they
realised.

On 17/12/2023 16:21, Theo wrote:
> I wonder when it'll become sensible for everyone vulnerable to have a solar
> panel and a small battery. Size it so that even in the depths of winter it
> would provide enough power to keep critical comms going, and maybe mount the
> panel vertically (south/east/west facing) so it doesn't collect snow.

Not very practical if you are on the North side of the middle floor of a
tower block.

JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 17/12/2023 17:30, Theo wrote:
>> You'd keep the battery inside, so if it gets so cold as not to charge then
>> you have other problems. You might get down to freezing inside during a
>> week's power cut, but even then you'll get some degree of power during
>> daylight hours.
>
>
> Most systems tend to have a combination of solar panel and small wind
> turbine.
>

Most systems? Road signs and maybe other off-grid devices but domestically
small wind turbines are exceedingly rare. Generally because they’re
useless.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

On 18/12/2023 15:20, Tim+ wrote:
> Most systems? Road signs and maybe other off-grid devices but domestically
> small wind turbines are exceedingly rare. Generally because they’re
> useless.

I was referring to serious systems, many domestic ones just seem vanity
projects. Remember the one that was heavily promoted and was only a
couple of hundred watts - I know one commercial installation (with some
seriously large electric motors!) that had one and were going around
telling everyone how 'green' they were.

On 17 Dec 2023 13:35, JMB99 wrote:
> On 17/12/2023 12:36, Tweed wrote:
>> Why not? Battery in device. Press big red button, device powers up, sends
>> message. Basically a variant on an EPIRB.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_position-indicating_radiobeacon
>
>
>
> Are the telecom companies (not just BT) going to pay? They are supposed
> removing the PSTN to save money so they can fund all these expensive
> supposed solutions out of their savings.
>
> Perhaps the Chancellor can bring in a windfall tax to fund these?

He can't because the profits aren't that huge and, if BT share price
starts to slide the whole FTTP program will stutter. If it worsens then
the government end up on the hook for the pension deficit.

On 18 Dec 2023 10:48, Tweed wrote:
> JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 17/12/2023 15:21, Tweed wrote:
>>> Why should the phone companies pay? Fall alarm systems are usually paid for
>>> by the end user.
>>
>>
>> Not pay for the fall alarms but pay to ensure that it continues to work
>> over their telephone network. I believe other users are being supplied
>> with a router etc that their existing telephone will connect to and
>> continue to work.
>>
>> Obviously an alarm system has to continue to work with the mains power
>> off so companies would probably have found another solution if they had
>> know that the telecom companies were going to remove this essential
>> feature of their system.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Fall alarm vendors have known for a number of years that this was going to
> happen. It's not news within the industry.

There are two things here, relating to fall alarms:
1.) No analogue line
2.) Connection not working when there is no power

Alarm vendors are dealing with 1.) already. My mother has just moved to
a data-based box from her provider, away from the ABC she had before.
She took the opportunity to upgrade from a pendant she has to press to
one that also detects a fall.

As to 2.), if the router/ONT/etc isn't powered it isn't going to work
no matter what the alarm provider does.
I gave her a UPS a couple of Christmases ago so she has assured power
for about an hour and a bit, which is long enough for the DNO to find
out what is wrong and give a restoration estimate and then enough time
for us to go and fetch her and bring her here.

Obviously that isn't as useful when she is asleep. But, that is where
the alarm provider come in. If they lose connection, they will call us
after a while.

On 18 Dec 2023 10:48, Tweed wrote:
> JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>> On 17/12/2023 15:21, Tweed wrote:
>>> Why should the phone companies pay? Fall alarm systems are usually paid for
>>> by the end user.
>>
>>
>> Not pay for the fall alarms but pay to ensure that it continues to work
>> over their telephone network. I believe other users are being supplied
>> with a router etc that their existing telephone will connect to and
>> continue to work.
>>
>> Obviously an alarm system has to continue to work with the mains power
>> off so companies would probably have found another solution if they had
>> know that the telecom companies were going to remove this essential
>> feature of their system.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Fall alarm vendors have known for a number of years that this was going to
> happen. It's not news within the industry.

There are two things here, relating to fall alarms:
1.) No analogue line
2.) Connection not working when there is no power

Alarm vendors are dealing with 1.) already. My mother has just moved to
a data-based box from her provider, away from the ABC she had before.
She took the opportunity to upgrade from a pendant she has to press to
one that also detects a fall.

As to 2.), if the router/ONT/etc isn't powered it isn't going to work
no matter what the alarm provider does.
I gave her a UPS a couple of Christmases ago so she has assured power
for about an hour and a bit, which is long enough for the DNO to find
out what is wrong and give a restoration estimate and then enough time
for us to go and fetch her and bring her here.

Obviously that isn't as useful when she is asleep. But, that is where
the alarm provider come in. If they lose connection, they will call us
after a while.

Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
> On 17 Dec 2023 13:35, JMB99 wrote:
>> On 17/12/2023 12:36, Tweed wrote:
>>> Why not? Battery in device. Press big red button, device powers up, sends
>>> message. Basically a variant on an EPIRB.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_position-indicating_radiobeacon
>>
>>
>>
>> Are the telecom companies (not just BT) going to pay? They are supposed
>> removing the PSTN to save money so they can fund all these expensive
>> supposed solutions out of their savings.
>>
>> Perhaps the Chancellor can bring in a windfall tax to fund these?
>
> He can't because the profits aren't that huge and, if BT share price
> starts to slide the whole FTTP program will stutter. If it worsens then
> the government end up on the hook for the pension deficit.
>
The point that is rarely mentioned is that there is a rapidly shrinking
pool of money to fund the existing copper PSTN. Traditionally it was funded
by a mixture of line rental and metered call charges. The latter have all
but vanished as voice call volumes have dwindled and those that exist are
moving to free over the top services or free as part of mobile packages.
Most customers now want a reliable and fast Internet connection. BT/OR
can’t keep offering their services over copper as their Altnet competitors
will steal their business by laying fibre to the property. So BT/OR have no
choice but to deploy fibre. They can’t charge for both a fibre and a copper
connection to a property as their prices would then be way in excess of the
competition. They can’t keep, in the long term, a few copper pairs for
pensioners as that would lose all the economies of scale that a copper
network depends on. No pensioner is going to pay the full economic costs of
a legacy copper pair.

So if you think the end user should not pay the additional costs of a big
battery etc, who should? If it is the telecom company it is going to
ultimately be a levy on all customers as that is the only other source of
funds.

On 19/12/2023 11:27, Tweed wrote:
> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>> On 17 Dec 2023 13:35, JMB99 wrote:
>>> On 17/12/2023 12:36, Tweed wrote:
>>>> Why not? Battery in device. Press big red button, device powers up, sends
>>>> message. Basically a variant on an EPIRB.
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_position-indicating_radiobeacon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Are the telecom companies (not just BT) going to pay? They are supposed
>>> removing the PSTN to save money so they can fund all these expensive
>>> supposed solutions out of their savings.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the Chancellor can bring in a windfall tax to fund these?
>>
>> He can't because the profits aren't that huge and, if BT share price
>> starts to slide the whole FTTP program will stutter. If it worsens then
>> the government end up on the hook for the pension deficit.
>>
> The point that is rarely mentioned is that there is a rapidly shrinking
> pool of money to fund the existing copper PSTN. Traditionally it was funded
> by a mixture of line rental and metered call charges. The latter have all
> but vanished as voice call volumes have dwindled and those that exist are
> moving to free over the top services or free as part of mobile packages.
> Most customers now want a reliable and fast Internet connection. BT/OR
> can’t keep offering their services over copper as their Altnet competitors
> will steal their business by laying fibre to the property. So BT/OR have no
> choice but to deploy fibre. They can’t charge for both a fibre and a copper
> connection to a property as their prices would then be way in excess of the
> competition. They can’t keep, in the long term, a few copper pairs for
> pensioners as that would lose all the economies of scale that a copper
> network depends on. No pensioner is going to pay the full economic costs of
> a legacy copper pair.
>
I see it a little differently.
First of all, no one wants copper. Its unreliable, its pricey, and it
needs power in the exchanges and street boxes. There are huge savings to
be made by eliminating it.

The problem is the huge upfront cost of installing fibre.

As far as call volumes go, well yes. Who uses a landline if they have a
mobile? Not many. I only use mine to call places that have long 'if you
want to murder a tech support bot, press 11' because its hands free, and
its easier to dial compared with the stupidPhone™

So Openreach's and indeed BT's model is all about providing services
over IP and the IP itself. And BT owns EE now so the mobile segment is
covered, too.

That is simply recognition of the changing market place. It makes more
sense to build a well over capacity network and charge for access,
rather than chargin g for bytes transferred or calls made.

> So if you think the end user should not pay the additional costs of a big
> battery etc, who should? If it is the telecom company it is going to
> ultimately be a levy on all customers as that is the only other source of
> funds.

The likely answer is that what will be kept alive by big batteries is
the mobile infrastructure, and emergency telephones will be provided
that have batteries that hook into that.

Landlines as powered voice only devices are simply obsolete.

--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

On 19/12/2023 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> As far as call volumes go, well yes. Who uses a landline if they have a
> mobile?

I always use my landline in preference to the mobile.

I prefer the reliable connection and don't like people calling me on my
mobile unnecessarily so try to avoid too many people (or more important,
companies) getting the number.

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 19/12/2023 11:27, Tweed wrote:
>> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>>> On 17 Dec 2023 13:35, JMB99 wrote:
>>>> On 17/12/2023 12:36, Tweed wrote:
>>>>> Why not? Battery in device. Press big red button, device powers up, sends
>>>>> message. Basically a variant on an EPIRB.
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_position-indicating_radiobeacon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are the telecom companies (not just BT) going to pay? They are supposed
>>>> removing the PSTN to save money so they can fund all these expensive
>>>> supposed solutions out of their savings.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps the Chancellor can bring in a windfall tax to fund these?
>>>
>>> He can't because the profits aren't that huge and, if BT share price
>>> starts to slide the whole FTTP program will stutter. If it worsens then
>>> the government end up on the hook for the pension deficit.
>>>
>> The point that is rarely mentioned is that there is a rapidly shrinking
>> pool of money to fund the existing copper PSTN. Traditionally it was funded
>> by a mixture of line rental and metered call charges. The latter have all
>> but vanished as voice call volumes have dwindled and those that exist are
>> moving to free over the top services or free as part of mobile packages.
>> Most customers now want a reliable and fast Internet connection. BT/OR
>> can’t keep offering their services over copper as their Altnet competitors
>> will steal their business by laying fibre to the property. So BT/OR have no
>> choice but to deploy fibre. They can’t charge for both a fibre and a copper
>> connection to a property as their prices would then be way in excess of the
>> competition. They can’t keep, in the long term, a few copper pairs for
>> pensioners as that would lose all the economies of scale that a copper
>> network depends on. No pensioner is going to pay the full economic costs of
>> a legacy copper pair.
>>
> I see it a little differently.
> First of all, no one wants copper. Its unreliable, its pricey, and it
> needs power in the exchanges and street boxes. There are huge savings to
> be made by eliminating it.
>
> The problem is the huge upfront cost of installing fibre.
>
> As far as call volumes go, well yes. Who uses a landline if they have a
> mobile? Not many. I only use mine to call places that have long 'if you
> want to murder a tech support bot, press 11' because its hands free, and
> its easier to dial compared with the stupidPhone™
>
> So Openreach's and indeed BT's model is all about providing services
> over IP and the IP itself. And BT owns EE now so the mobile segment is
> covered, too.
>
> That is simply recognition of the changing market place. It makes more
> sense to build a well over capacity network and charge for access,
> rather than chargin g for bytes transferred or calls made.
>
>> So if you think the end user should not pay the additional costs of a big
>> battery etc, who should? If it is the telecom company it is going to
>> ultimately be a levy on all customers as that is the only other source of
>> funds.
>
> The likely answer is that what will be kept alive by big batteries is
> the mobile infrastructure, and emergency telephones will be provided
> that have batteries that hook into that.
>
> Landlines as powered voice only devices are simply obsolete.
>
>

I’m a little unconvinced about the mobile network staying up. Round here
there’s been a proliferation of street side monopole masts with a cabinet
adjacent. There’s little evidence of any significant battery reserve and
certainly no generator. Be interesting to know what EE have to do in their
contract for the Emergency Services Network, and also how that translates
into reality given all the difficulties that project has had.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> I’m a little unconvinced about the mobile network staying up. Round here
> there’s been a proliferation of street side monopole masts with a cabinet
> adjacent. There’s little evidence of any significant battery reserve and
> certainly no generator. Be interesting to know what EE have to do in their
> contract for the Emergency Services Network, and also how that translates
> into reality given all the difficulties that project has had.

You might be able to do something by letting the network fall into a
degraded mode: key towers have battery backups or generators, enable cross
network roaming so everyone has signal from at least one key tower even if
from a different network, emergency services have priority, end users are
limited to 1Mbps or something (so voice calls, chat and websites fine, but
no streaming).

But this would need to be designed in.

Theo

On 19/12/2023 12:58, Tweed wrote:
> Be interesting to know what EE have to do in their
> contract for the Emergency Services Network, and also how that translates
> into reality given all the difficulties that project has had.

But will they maintain the whole site or somehow manage to only maintain
the Emergency Service Network traffic?

David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
> On 17/12/2023 16:21, Theo wrote:
> > I wonder when it'll become sensible for everyone vulnerable to have a solar
> > panel and a small battery. Size it so that even in the depths of winter it
> > would provide enough power to keep critical comms going, and maybe mount the
> > panel vertically (south/east/west facing) so it doesn't collect snow.
>
> Not very practical if you are on the North side of the middle floor of a
> tower block.

Then it should be a service the tower block provides, eg via panels on the
roof. It makes a lot of sense to install panels there for day to day use
anyway, so it wouldn't require a lot to make an emergency supply.

Theo

JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
> On 19/12/2023 12:58, Tweed wrote:
>> Be interesting to know what EE have to do in their
>> contract for the Emergency Services Network, and also how that translates
>> into reality given all the difficulties that project has had.
>
>
> But will they maintain the whole site or somehow manage to only maintain
> the Emergency Service Network traffic?
>

Well the ESN is just another network ID, no special frequency allocation
that I’m aware of. I can see it on my phone if I scan for networks but, of
course, cannot attach. My guess is it runs at a higher priority than
standard EE traffic. I don’t think it is like the TETRA network which is
physically separate. I can’t really see any significant power saving by not
running the EE bit. I wonder if mobiles can roam to the ESN when placing an
emergency call.

On 19 Dec 2023 13:24:08 +0000 (GMT)
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

> David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
> > On 17/12/2023 16:21, Theo wrote:
> > > I wonder when it'll become sensible for everyone vulnerable to
> > > have a solar panel and a small battery. Size it so that even in
> > > the depths of winter it would provide enough power to keep
> > > critical comms going, and maybe mount the panel vertically
> > > (south/east/west facing) so it doesn't collect snow.
> >
> > Not very practical if you are on the North side of the middle floor
> > of a tower block.
>
> Then it should be a service the tower block provides, eg via panels
> on the roof. It makes a lot of sense to install panels there for day
> to day use anyway, so it wouldn't require a lot to make an emergency
> supply.
>
> Theo

"Should" is a very useful word, with no detail of how to actually
compel the owner or landlord of the block to actually do it.

They might even actively prevent installation of such devices on the
building.

--
Davey.

On 19/12/2023 14:17, Davey wrote:
> "Should" is a very useful word, with no detail of how to actually
> compel the owner or landlord of the block to actually do it.
>
> They might even actively prevent installation of such devices on the
> building.

Also, if you have a vulnerable person living in such a block it is
likely to be social housing, with no money for such features.

On 19/12/2023 13:47, Tweed wrote:
> Well the ESN is just another network ID, no special frequency allocation
> that I’m aware of. I can see it on my phone if I scan for networks but, of
> course, cannot attach. My guess is it runs at a higher priority than
> standard EE traffic. I don’t think it is like the TETRA network which is
> physically separate. I can’t really see any significant power saving by not
> running the EE bit. I wonder if mobiles can roam to the ESN when placing an
> emergency call.

It will be a virtual network embedded in the existing one so should be
possible.

On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 15:10:06 +0000
David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:

> On 19/12/2023 14:17, Davey wrote:
> > "Should" is a very useful word, with no detail of how to actually
> > compel the owner or landlord of the block to actually do it.
> >
> > They might even actively prevent installation of such devices on the
> > building.
>
> Also, if you have a vulnerable person living in such a block it is
> likely to be social housing, with no money for such features.

Double Whammy, then. Great idea, fat chance of it happening.

--
Davey.