Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes:

> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2024 14:15:59 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> have gone FTTP the copper landline service will only be used by
>>>>>>> those few who make voice calls. Since they won't be paying the
>>>>>>> costs of maintaining the copper infrastructure, and wouldn't be
>>>>>>> able to pay the true costs even if they were forced to, the
>>>>>>> death spiral will accelerate very rapidly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the true cost? I don't see how it can be so
>>>>>> astronomically expensive to maintain a copper wire, especially
>>>>>> since we always did, even when there were fewer landlines than
>>>>>> there are now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could it be the opportunity cost of selling all the scrap copper?
>>>>
>>>> I think it might be one of those things which becomes true by
>>>> repetition, like the police are short of staff so cannot
>>>> investigate crimes, the NHS is short of staff so don't phone your
>>>> GP, they can't cope.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A copper network requires ducts, multicore cables to the exchange,
>>> and exchange buildings and the associated exchange equipment. Those
>>> costs are currently shared by many subscribers. If the numbers of
>>> subscribers to the copper system collapse (which they will despite
>>> the fuss) the costs of the above will not fall in direct proportion
>>> to the loss of subscribers. The question the Mail has failed to ask
>>> is are you willing to pay 2, 3 or 4 times your current line rental
>>> to keep the service.
>>
>> I am quite happy for them to put an overhead wire to a cabinet. I
>> don't really need my wire to go all the way to the exchange. What's
>> the true cost of an overhead wire to a cabinet?
>>
>>
>
> What do you expect to happen in the cabinet? If it is a current FTTC
> cabinet it will stop working a few hours into a power cut, so you are
> no better off. Once FTTP comes along the cabinets will vanish as well.

Local power cuts are just one of the problems. Power cuts in the house
are also a problem, as are people unplugging routers because they don't
know what they are. Also strange problems with phoning out which no one
yet understands.

Wouldn't it be better to have a cabinet with a UPS than every house
having a UPS? What's the true cost of an overhead wire to a cabinet?

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2024 14:15:59 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> have gone FTTP the copper landline service will only be used by
>>>>>>>> those few who make voice calls. Since they won't be paying the
>>>>>>>> costs of maintaining the copper infrastructure, and wouldn't be
>>>>>>>> able to pay the true costs even if they were forced to, the
>>>>>>>> death spiral will accelerate very rapidly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the true cost? I don't see how it can be so
>>>>>>> astronomically expensive to maintain a copper wire, especially
>>>>>>> since we always did, even when there were fewer landlines than
>>>>>>> there are now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could it be the opportunity cost of selling all the scrap copper?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it might be one of those things which becomes true by
>>>>> repetition, like the police are short of staff so cannot
>>>>> investigate crimes, the NHS is short of staff so don't phone your
>>>>> GP, they can't cope.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A copper network requires ducts, multicore cables to the exchange,
>>>> and exchange buildings and the associated exchange equipment. Those
>>>> costs are currently shared by many subscribers. If the numbers of
>>>> subscribers to the copper system collapse (which they will despite
>>>> the fuss) the costs of the above will not fall in direct proportion
>>>> to the loss of subscribers. The question the Mail has failed to ask
>>>> is are you willing to pay 2, 3 or 4 times your current line rental
>>>> to keep the service.
>>>
>>> I am quite happy for them to put an overhead wire to a cabinet. I
>>> don't really need my wire to go all the way to the exchange. What's
>>> the true cost of an overhead wire to a cabinet?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What do you expect to happen in the cabinet? If it is a current FTTC
>> cabinet it will stop working a few hours into a power cut, so you are
>> no better off. Once FTTP comes along the cabinets will vanish as well.
>
> Local power cuts are just one of the problems. Power cuts in the house
> are also a problem, as are people unplugging routers because they don't
> know what they are. Also strange problems with phoning out which no one
> yet understands.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to have a cabinet with a UPS than every house
> having a UPS? What's the true cost of an overhead wire to a cabinet?
>

Cabinets have to be powered and maintained, as will the local copper wire.
The demand for such a provision is diminishing and will probably collapse
in the next few years. Younger people are wedded to mobiles and see no need
to pay for a landline phone. A cell site with a UPS will replace your
cabinet with a UPS, and both have the same issue with length of runtime
during a power cut.

The more important question to be asked are what provision is being made to
keep the cellular network working during prolonged power failures. As the
emergency services are going to be reliant on it soon I’d like to know the
answer.

On 05/01/2024 14:15, Richmond wrote:
> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>
>> have gone FTTP the copper landline service will only be used by those few
>> who make voice calls. Since they won't be paying the costs of maintaining
>> the copper infrastructure, and wouldn't be able to pay the true costs even
>> if they were forced to, the death spiral will accelerate very rapidly.
>
> What is the true cost? I don't see how it can be so astronomically
> expensive to maintain a copper wire, especially since we always did,
> even when there were fewer landlines than there are now.
>
Old copper? I was getting about 4 engineer visits a year at probably
around £400 a visit with all the travel fuel test kit and so on.

You happy to pay £1600 a year for line rental?

--
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

Anon.

On 05/01/2024 14:38, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2024 14:15:59 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> have gone FTTP the copper landline service will only be used by those few
>>>> who make voice calls. Since they won't be paying the costs of maintaining
>>>> the copper infrastructure, and wouldn't be able to pay the true costs even
>>>> if they were forced to, the death spiral will accelerate very rapidly.
>>>
>>> What is the true cost? I don't see how it can be so astronomically
>>> expensive to maintain a copper wire, especially since we always did,
>>> even when there were fewer landlines than there are now.
>>
>> Could it be the opportunity cost of selling all the scrap copper?
>
> At last someone else has realised what I have been saying all along.
> Selling off the family siver ...er, copper.
>
>
Amazing that two people have the same delusions.
A moment of Doing Sums (remember those?) shows it's all about
maintenance and the cost of copper is utterly irrelevant.

--
The lifetime of any political organisation is about three years before
its been subverted by the people it tried to warn you about.

Anon.

On 05/01/2024 15:00, Richmond wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2024 14:15:59 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> have gone FTTP the copper landline service will only be used by
>>>>>> those few who make voice calls. Since they won't be paying the
>>>>>> costs of maintaining the copper infrastructure, and wouldn't be
>>>>>> able to pay the true costs even if they were forced to, the death
>>>>>> spiral will accelerate very rapidly.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the true cost? I don't see how it can be so astronomically
>>>>> expensive to maintain a copper wire, especially since we always
>>>>> did, even when there were fewer landlines than there are now.
>>>>
>>>> Could it be the opportunity cost of selling all the scrap copper?
>>>
>>> I think it might be one of those things which becomes true by
>>> repetition, like the police are short of staff so cannot investigate
>>> crimes, the NHS is short of staff so don't phone your GP, they can't
>>> cope.
>>>
>>
>> A copper network requires ducts, multicore cables to the exchange, and
>> exchange buildings and the associated exchange equipment. Those costs
>> are currently shared by many subscribers. If the numbers of
>> subscribers to the copper system collapse (which they will despite the
>> fuss) the costs of the above will not fall in direct proportion to the
>> loss of subscribers. The question the Mail has failed to ask is are
>> you willing to pay 2, 3 or 4 times your current line rental to keep
>> the service.
>
> I am quite happy for them to put an overhead wire to a cabinet. I don't
> really need my wire to go all the way to the exchange. What's the true
> cost of an overhead wire to a cabinet?
>
The cabinet has no power for your line [that wont go down if there is a
power cut anyway]

--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

On 05/01/2024 15:11, Tweed wrote:

> What do you expect to happen in the cabinet? If it is a current FTTC
> cabinet it will stop working a few hours into a power cut, so you are no
> better off. Once FTTP comes along the cabinets will vanish as well.
>
That is an interesting question. Many people have said they will be used
as fibre splitting points instead

--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

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

> On 05/01/2024 14:15, Richmond wrote:
>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>
>>> have gone FTTP the copper landline service will only be used by
>>> those few who make voice calls. Since they won't be paying the
>>> costs of maintaining the copper infrastructure, and wouldn't be able
>>> to pay the true costs even if they were forced to, the death spiral
>>> will accelerate very rapidly. >> What is the true cost? I don't see
>>> how it can be so astronomically >> expensive to maintain a copper
>>> wire, especially since we always did, >> even when there were fewer
>>> landlines than there are now.
>>
> Old copper? I was getting about 4 engineer visits a year at probably
> around £400 a visit with all the travel fuel test kit and so on.
>
> You happy to pay £1600 a year for line rental?

How did we ever have phone lines then? There were fewer subscribers in
the sixties and seventies than there are now. And yet we could do
it. Now we must believe it is impossible.

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:

> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 05/01/2024 14:15, Richmond wrote:
>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> have gone FTTP the copper landline service will only be used by
>>>> those few who make voice calls. Since they won't be paying the
>>>> costs of maintaining the copper infrastructure, and wouldn't be
>>>> able to pay the true costs even if they were forced to, the death
>>>> spiral will accelerate very rapidly. >> What is the true cost? I
>>>> don't see how it can be so astronomically >> expensive to maintain
>>>> a copper wire, especially since we always did, >> even when there
>>>> were fewer landlines than there are now.
>>>
>> Old copper? I was getting about 4 engineer visits a year at probably
>> around £400 a visit with all the travel fuel test kit and so on.
>>
>> You happy to pay £1600 a year for line rental?
>
> How did we ever have phone lines then? There were fewer subscribers in
> the sixties and seventies than there are now. And yet we could do
> it. Now we must believe it is impossible.

Incidentally I have had a 1km copper line for 14 years and only two
faults in that time that I recall. So you aren't quoting an average.

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 05/01/2024 15:11, Tweed wrote:
>
>> What do you expect to happen in the cabinet? If it is a current FTTC
>> cabinet it will stop working a few hours into a power cut, so you are no
>> better off. Once FTTP comes along the cabinets will vanish as well.
>>
> That is an interesting question. Many people have said they will be used
> as fibre splitting points instead
>
>

Judging by our City Fibre installation round here, yes cabinets will be
present, but they are entirely passive unpowered installations. In my post
above I meant that the powered FTTC cabinets will go. In the new build
estate nearby Open Reach FTTP uses a rather nifty underground chamber. When
the lid is lifted the whole fibre cable tray gubbins rises out of the
ground.

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> How did we ever have phone lines then? There were fewer subscribers in
> the sixties and seventies than there are now. And yet we could do
> it. Now we must believe it is impossible.

How much was line rental in those days, and how much would that be today
adjusted for inflation? What about call costs?

Theo

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 05/01/2024 14:15, Richmond wrote:
>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> have gone FTTP the copper landline service will only be used by
>>>> those few who make voice calls. Since they won't be paying the
>>>> costs of maintaining the copper infrastructure, and wouldn't be able
>>>> to pay the true costs even if they were forced to, the death spiral
>>>> will accelerate very rapidly. >> What is the true cost? I don't see
>>>> how it can be so astronomically >> expensive to maintain a copper
>>>> wire, especially since we always did, >> even when there were fewer
>>>> landlines than there are now.
>>>
>> Old copper? I was getting about 4 engineer visits a year at probably
>> around £400 a visit with all the travel fuel test kit and so on.
>>
>> You happy to pay £1600 a year for line rental?
>
> How did we ever have phone lines then? There were fewer subscribers in
> the sixties and seventies than there are now. And yet we could do
> it. Now we must believe it is impossible.
>

Phone lines were very expensive even in the late 1960s. We had one of the
few on the street and neighbours used to come round to make important
calls. Then there was pent up demand. As they became cheaper more people
subscribed. Now demand is starting to collapse. My copper line is now
redundant as I have City Fibre. We use mobile phones for voice calls.
Granted not everyone is on FTTP yet, but the roll out is gathering speed.
My two adult children have never had a copper landline and never will. No
commercial company is going to continue to invest in a technology that has
a very limited future. For 99% of use cases fibre and mobiles are better
than copper. Copper only wins on being a maintained service during power
cuts. It’s not a selling point that is important to the vast majority of
customers.

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>> How did we ever have phone lines then? There were fewer subscribers in
>> the sixties and seventies than there are now. And yet we could do
>> it. Now we must believe it is impossible.
>
> How much was line rental in those days, and how much would that be today
> adjusted for inflation? What about call costs?
>
> Theo
>

Line rental was £14/year in 1966. This works out at about £18/month today.
However call charges were huge. Even in the late 1980s we had to budget for
the cost of a call to relatives the other side of the country. There’s
practically no revenue from call charges today.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes:

> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>> How did we ever have phone lines then? There were fewer subscribers in
>>> the sixties and seventies than there are now. And yet we could do
>>> it. Now we must believe it is impossible.
>>
>> How much was line rental in those days, and how much would that be today
>> adjusted for inflation? What about call costs?
>>
>> Theo
>>
>
> Line rental was £14/year in 1966. This works out at about £18/month today.
> However call charges were huge. Even in the late 1980s we had to budget for
> the cost of a call to relatives the other side of the country. There’s
> practically no revenue from call charges today.

Is that the true cost of copper then? £18 pcm?

My father had a phone line in the late sixties and we weren't rich by
any standards. I don't know how much calls were, but the prices were
different for local, distance, long distance.

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:

> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>
>> have gone FTTP the copper landline service will only be used by those few
>> who make voice calls. Since they won't be paying the costs of maintaining
>> the copper infrastructure, and wouldn't be able to pay the true costs even
>> if they were forced to, the death spiral will accelerate very rapidly.
>
> What is the true cost? I don't see how it can be so astronomically
> expensive to maintain a copper wire, especially since we always did

Plus the supporting infrastructure such as the cards at each end, either the
old digital exchanges or whatever is needed to interface to the new all VoIP
network, plus spares, plus a supply chain, plus training for everyone to
maintain it.

> even when there were fewer landlines than there are now.

With far simpler technology at a point where labour was cheaper.

--

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>> How did we ever have phone lines then? There were fewer subscribers in
>>>> the sixties and seventies than there are now. And yet we could do
>>>> it. Now we must believe it is impossible.
>>>
>>> How much was line rental in those days, and how much would that be today
>>> adjusted for inflation? What about call costs?
>>>
>>> Theo
>>>
>>
>> Line rental was £14/year in 1966. This works out at about £18/month today.
>> However call charges were huge. Even in the late 1980s we had to budget for
>> the cost of a call to relatives the other side of the country. There’s
>> practically no revenue from call charges today.
>
> Is that the true cost of copper then? £18 pcm?
>
> My father had a phone line in the late sixties and we weren't rich by
> any standards. I don't know how much calls were, but the prices were
> different for local, distance, long distance.
>

No it is not the true cost, because there was a significant revenue stream
from voice calls. I suspect also that revenue from business cross
subsidised domestic subscribers. Business went to great lengths to
encourage calls to be made after 1pm when they became cheaper.

Set against that, exchange equipment capital and maintenance costs were
very much higher given the technology of the day.

As a data point, I did have a copper pair via Zen for voice only. It was
being charged at £12/month. They raised that to £25/month last year
(craftily stating that voice services were not included in their no price
increase guarantee) which shows the direction of travel of line rental
costs.

I stopped the service, ported the number to Andrews and Arnold, and really
out of curiosity than need, used their sip2sim service. This sends voice
calls to the mobile network. I put the sim in a desktop mobile phone, which
for all practical purposes functions like a conventional wired telephone.
All this for around £2.50/month excluding calls (which work out at about
23p/minute once the mobile charges are factored in). The phone, which is
mains powered, will run off its internal battery for two days. So to some
extent this answers the power cut issue for a period anyway, and is a
simple solution for those that don’t wish to or can’t adapt to the newer
digital voice delivery methods. Phone was about £50. Obviously, you need to
be within range of a mobile signal, O2 in my case. For an increased call
charge of around 12p/min you can have a sim that will roam to any available
network.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes:

> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>> How did we ever have phone lines then? There were fewer
>>>>> subscribers in the sixties and seventies than there are now. And
>>>>> yet we could do it. Now we must believe it is impossible.
>>>>
>>>> How much was line rental in those days, and how much would that be
>>>> today adjusted for inflation? What about call costs?
>>>>
>>>> Theo
>>>>
>>>
>>> Line rental was £14/year in 1966. This works out at about £18/month
>>> today. However call charges were huge. Even in the late 1980s we
>>> had to budget for the cost of a call to relatives the other side of
>>> the country. There’s practically no revenue from call charges today.
>>
>> Is that the true cost of copper then? £18 pcm?
>>
>> My father had a phone line in the late sixties and we weren't rich by
>> any standards. I don't know how much calls were, but the prices were
>> different for local, distance, long distance.
>>
>
> No it is not the true cost, because there was a significant revenue
> stream from voice calls. I suspect also that revenue from business
> cross subsidised domestic subscribers. Business went to great lengths
> to encourage calls to be made after 1pm when they became cheaper.
>
> Set against that, exchange equipment capital and maintenance costs
> were very much higher given the technology of the day.

I'll bet the customer support was better then. How could it be any
worse? Virgin Media is torture.

>
> As a data point, I did have a copper pair via Zen for voice only. It
> was being charged at £12/month. They raised that to £25/month last
> year (craftily stating that voice services were not included in their
> no price increase guarantee) which shows the direction of travel of
> line rental costs.
>
> I stopped the service, ported the number to Andrews and Arnold, and
> really out of curiosity than need, used their sip2sim service. This
> sends voice calls to the mobile network. I put the sim in a desktop
> mobile phone, which for all practical purposes functions like a
> conventional wired telephone. All this for around £2.50/month
> excluding calls (which work out at about 23p/minute once the mobile
> charges are factored in). The phone, which is mains powered, will run
> off its internal battery for two days. So to some extent this answers
> the power cut issue for a period anyway, and is a simple solution for
> those that don’t wish to or can’t adapt to the newer digital voice
> delivery methods. Phone was about £50. Obviously, you need to be
> within range of a mobile signal, O2 in my case. For an increased call
> charge of around 12p/min you can have a sim that will roam to any
> available network.

I had an idea to get something like this for Aged P, which would do away
with Virgin Media and allow existing handsets to be used.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/TP-Link-Telephony-Removable-Configuration-TL-MR6500v/dp/B08MFQB761

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

> On 05/01/2024 14:38, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> > Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 05 Jan 2024 14:15:59 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> have gone FTTP the copper landline service will only be used by those
> >>>> few who make voice calls. Since they won't be paying the costs of
> >>>> maintaining the copper infrastructure, and wouldn't be able to pay
> >>>> the true costs even if they were forced to, the death spiral will
> >>>> accelerate very rapidly.
> >>>
> >>> What is the true cost? I don't see how it can be so astronomically
> >>> expensive to maintain a copper wire, especially since we always did,
> >>> even when there were fewer landlines than there are now.
> >>
> >> Could it be the opportunity cost of selling all the scrap copper?
> >
> > At last someone else has realised what I have been saying all along.
> > Selling off the family siver ...er, copper.
> >
> >
> Amazing that two people have the same delusions.
> A moment of Doing Sums (remember those?) shows it's all about
> maintenance and the cost of copper is utterly irrelevant.

The maintenance costs are in the ductwork and damage repair. We have
already established that fibre has no advantage over copper in these
respects and actually may be more expensive and difficult to repair.

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

On 05/01/2024 20:11, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 05/01/2024 14:38, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2024 14:15:59 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> have gone FTTP the copper landline service will only be used by those
>>>>>> few who make voice calls. Since they won't be paying the costs of
>>>>>> maintaining the copper infrastructure, and wouldn't be able to pay
>>>>>> the true costs even if they were forced to, the death spiral will
>>>>>> accelerate very rapidly.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the true cost? I don't see how it can be so astronomically
>>>>> expensive to maintain a copper wire, especially since we always did,
>>>>> even when there were fewer landlines than there are now.
>>>>
>>>> Could it be the opportunity cost of selling all the scrap copper?
>>>
>>> At last someone else has realised what I have been saying all along.
>>> Selling off the family siver ...er, copper.
>>>
>>>
>> Amazing that two people have the same delusions.
>> A moment of Doing Sums (remember those?) shows it's all about
>> maintenance and the cost of copper is utterly irrelevant.
>
> The maintenance costs are in the ductwork and damage repair.
No. they are not.

The maintenance cost is all in finding and remaking corroded copper joints

We have
> already established that fibre has no advantage over copper in these
> respects

We have already established that it does.
Try to keep up .

> and actually may be more expensive and difficult to repair.
>
Completely wrong, as usual.
Some of us have been involved in fixing copper circuits and making fibre
joints. Fibre joints don't corrode. A fibre duct full of water just
keeps on working.
Splicing is a piece of cake with the current kit open reach has.

>

--
Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle
more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump
their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the
battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is
that they are dead.
Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.

On 05/01/2024 16:30, Richmond wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 05/01/2024 14:15, Richmond wrote:
>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>>
>>>> have gone FTTP the copper landline service will only be used by
>>>> those few who make voice calls. Since they won't be paying the
>>>> costs of maintaining the copper infrastructure, and wouldn't be able
>>>> to pay the true costs even if they were forced to, the death spiral
>>>> will accelerate very rapidly. >> What is the true cost? I don't see
>>>> how it can be so astronomically >> expensive to maintain a copper
>>>> wire, especially since we always did, >> even when there were fewer
>>>> landlines than there are now.
>>>
>> Old copper? I was getting about 4 engineer visits a year at probably
>> around £400 a visit with all the travel fuel test kit and so on.
>>
>> You happy to pay £1600 a year for line rental?
>
> How did we ever have phone lines then? There were fewer subscribers in
> the sixties and seventies than there are now. And yet we could do
> it. Now we must believe it is impossible.

It was back in the day fucking expensive to have a phone and the quality
was often execrable

--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

On 05/01/2024 16:36, Richmond wrote:
> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:
>
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 05/01/2024 14:15, Richmond wrote:
>>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> have gone FTTP the copper landline service will only be used by
>>>>> those few who make voice calls. Since they won't be paying the
>>>>> costs of maintaining the copper infrastructure, and wouldn't be
>>>>> able to pay the true costs even if they were forced to, the death
>>>>> spiral will accelerate very rapidly. >> What is the true cost? I
>>>>> don't see how it can be so astronomically >> expensive to maintain
>>>>> a copper wire, especially since we always did, >> even when there
>>>>> were fewer landlines than there are now.
>>>>
>>> Old copper? I was getting about 4 engineer visits a year at probably
>>> around £400 a visit with all the travel fuel test kit and so on.
>>>
>>> You happy to pay £1600 a year for line rental?
>>
>> How did we ever have phone lines then? There were fewer subscribers in
>> the sixties and seventies than there are now. And yet we could do
>> it. Now we must believe it is impossible.
>
> Incidentally I have had a 1km copper line for 14 years and only two
> faults in that time that I recall. So you aren't quoting an average.

Are you running broadband over it though?

--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

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

> On 05/01/2024 20:11, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On 05/01/2024 14:38, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> >>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2024 14:15:59 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> have gone FTTP the copper landline service will only be used by those
> >>>>>> few who make voice calls. Since they won't be paying the costs of
> >>>>>> maintaining the copper infrastructure, and wouldn't be able to pay
> >>>>>> the true costs even if they were forced to, the death spiral will
> >>>>>> accelerate very rapidly.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What is the true cost? I don't see how it can be so astronomically
> >>>>> expensive to maintain a copper wire, especially since we always did,
> >>>>> even when there were fewer landlines than there are now.
> >>>>
> >>>> Could it be the opportunity cost of selling all the scrap copper?
> >>>
> >>> At last someone else has realised what I have been saying all along.
> >>> Selling off the family siver ...er, copper.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Amazing that two people have the same delusions.
> >> A moment of Doing Sums (remember those?) shows it's all about
> >> maintenance and the cost of copper is utterly irrelevant.
> >
> > The maintenance costs are in the ductwork and damage repair.
> No. they are not.
>
> The maintenance cost is all in finding and remaking corroded copper joints
>
> We have
> > already established that fibre has no advantage over copper in these
> > respects
>
> We have already established that it does.
> Try to keep up .
>
> > and actually may be more expensive and difficult to repair.
> >
> Completely wrong, as usual.
> Some of us have been involved in fixing copper circuits and making fibre
> joints. Fibre joints don't corrode. A fibre duct full of water just
> keeps on working.
> Splicing is a piece of cake with the current kit open reach has.

Strange how much variation there must be across the network. My
information came from discussions on this topic with a BT/OpenReach
engineer whose job was to find and clear cable faults.

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

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

> On 05/01/2024 16:30, Richmond wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 05/01/2024 14:15, Richmond wrote:
>>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> have gone FTTP the copper landline service will only be used by
>>>>> those few who make voice calls. Since they won't be paying the
>>>>> costs of maintaining the copper infrastructure, and wouldn't be
>>>>> able to pay the true costs even if they were forced to, the death
>>>>> spiral will accelerate very rapidly. >> What is the true cost? I
>>>>> don't see how it can be so astronomically >> expensive to maintain
>>>>> a copper wire, especially since we always did, >> even when there
>>>>> were fewer landlines than there are now.
>>>>
>>> Old copper? I was getting about 4 engineer visits a year at probably
>>> around £400 a visit with all the travel fuel test kit and so on.
>>>
>>> You happy to pay £1600 a year for line rental? How did we ever have
>> phone lines then? There were fewer subscribers in the sixties and
>> seventies than there are now. And yet we could do it. Now we must
>> believe it is impossible.
>
> It was back in the day fucking expensive to have a phone and the
> quality was often execrable

"expensive" is a matter of opinion. Like I said elsewhere, my dad had
one in the sixties and we were not rich. In the 70s everyone I knew had
one except my grandparents.

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

> On 05/01/2024 16:36, Richmond wrote:
>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:
>>
>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 05/01/2024 14:15, Richmond wrote:
>>>>> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> have gone FTTP the copper landline service will only be used by
>>>>>> those few who make voice calls. Since they won't be paying the
>>>>>> costs of maintaining the copper infrastructure, and wouldn't be
>>>>>> able to pay the true costs even if they were forced to, the death
>>>>>> spiral will accelerate very rapidly. >> What is the true cost? I
>>>>>> don't see how it can be so astronomically >> expensive to
>>>>>> maintain a copper wire, especially since we always did, >> even
>>>>>> when there were fewer landlines than there are now.
>>>>>
>>>> Old copper? I was getting about 4 engineer visits a year at
>>>> probably around £400 a visit with all the travel fuel test kit and
>>>> so on.
>>>>
>>>> You happy to pay £1600 a year for line rental?
>>>
>>> How did we ever have phone lines then? There were fewer subscribers
>>> in the sixties and seventies than there are now. And yet we could do
>>> it. Now we must believe it is impossible. >> Incidentally I have
>>> had a 1km copper line for 14 years and only two >> faults in that
>>> time that I recall. So you aren't quoting an average.
>
> Are you running broadband over it though?

Yes. But then I am not the one having VOIP forced on me. My mum is. And
she doesn't have broadband.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> > Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> >>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> >>>> How did we ever have phone lines then? There were fewer subscribers in
> >>>> the sixties and seventies than there are now. And yet we could do
> >>>> it. Now we must believe it is impossible.
> >>>
> >>> How much was line rental in those days, and how much would that be today
> >>> adjusted for inflation? What about call costs?
> >>>
> >>> Theo
> >>>
> >>
> >> Line rental was £14/year in 1966. This works out at about £18/month today.
> >> However call charges were huge. Even in the late 1980s we had to budget for
> >> the cost of a call to relatives the other side of the country. There’s
> >> practically no revenue from call charges today.
> >
> > Is that the true cost of copper then? £18 pcm?
> >
> > My father had a phone line in the late sixties and we weren't rich by
> > any standards. I don't know how much calls were, but the prices were
> > different for local, distance, long distance.
> >
>
> No it is not the true cost, because there was a significant revenue stream
> from voice calls. I suspect also that revenue from business cross
> subsidised domestic subscribers. Business went to great lengths to
> encourage calls to be made after 1pm when they became cheaper.

I've long tried to explain to people on Virgin Media that their line rental
is negatively priced. They complained that it is/was cheaper to take
broadband with phone compared with just broadband, but this is deliberate.
If you have a phone there's a chance you'll make revenue-earning calls for
VM - their call rates are so high (especially to mobiles and international)
they want to make sure you have a working phone line to increase the chances
of generating call revenue for them.

In the case of VM they are already maintaining the copper coaxial network
for broadband or TV so the additional overhead in maintaining the extra
copper pair in the same cable is minimal. Likewise if that's run over VOIP.
So any call revenue is almost entirely profit on top (minus some minimal
costs for wholesale termination of those calls).

Similarly, back in 20th century the phone network depended on people (and
businesses) making calls cross-subsidising those who never did. It was in
the interests of the phone network for people to have lines so they could
make calls, and for others to generate revenue by calling them. If you
didn't have a line there was no chance of revenue in either direction.

Theo

On 06/01/2024 15:32, Theo wrote:
> I've long tried to explain to people on Virgin Media that their line rental
> is negatively priced. They complained that it is/was cheaper to take
> broadband with phone compared with just broadband, but this is deliberate.
> If you have a phone there's a chance you'll make revenue-earning calls for
> VM - their call rates are so high (especially to mobiles and international)
> they want to make sure you have a working phone line to increase the chances
> of generating call revenue for them.
Back in the day it was way cheaper to ask BT ro install an ISDN trunk
- which included fibre, and then cancel it and buy a 2Mbps megastream
over the fibre, than actually order the megastream and fibre...

--
“It is hard to imagine a more stupid decision or more dangerous way of
making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people
who pay no price for being wrong.”

Thomas Sowell