On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 12:45:36 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 07/01/2024 11:32, Marco Moock wrote:
>> Am 05.01.2024 um 12:09:33 Uhr schrieb Scott:
>
>>> As someone about to move to VOIP, I am not arguing from my own
>>> perspective (I will make sure I have backup) but suggesting there is a
>>> problem for some members of society.
>>
>"A socialist is someone who wants the government to do to someone else
>what he cant be arsed to do himself"

You are right. I cannot be arsed with providing a universal telephone
service across the United Kingdom. I'm a lazy bastard!
>
>> I agree with that, but I think that is a more general problem for them.
>> No stair lifts will work, no fridge, no light.
>> I think a power outage for multiple days is the big problem here.
>>
>
>Indeed. There are people on life support kit at home. If the power goes,
>they are fucked.

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 12:45:36 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 07/01/2024 11:32, Marco Moock wrote:
>>> Am 05.01.2024 um 12:09:33 Uhr schrieb Scott:
>>
>>>> As someone about to move to VOIP, I am not arguing from my own
>>>> perspective (I will make sure I have backup) but suggesting there is a
>>>> problem for some members of society.
>>>
>> "A socialist is someone who wants the government to do to someone else
>> what he cant be arsed to do himself"
>
> You are right. I cannot be arsed with providing a universal telephone
> service across the United Kingdom. I'm a lazy bastard!
>>
>
It’s down to money, not the telco being lazy. Feel free to propose a viable
economic model for a copper based (I assume that’s what you want) telephone
network that remains economically viable over the lifetime of the invested
assets.

On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 16:06:10 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 12:45:36 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/01/2024 11:32, Marco Moock wrote:
>>>> Am 05.01.2024 um 12:09:33 Uhr schrieb Scott:
>>>
>>>>> As someone about to move to VOIP, I am not arguing from my own
>>>>> perspective (I will make sure I have backup) but suggesting there is a
>>>>> problem for some members of society.
>>>>
>>> "A socialist is someone who wants the government to do to someone else
>>> what he cant be arsed to do himself"
>>
>> You are right. I cannot be arsed with providing a universal telephone
>> service across the United Kingdom. I'm a lazy bastard!
>>>
>It’s down to money, not the telco being lazy. Feel free to propose a viable
>economic model for a copper based (I assume that’s what you want) telephone
>network that remains economically viable over the lifetime of the invested
>assets.
>
I took it TNF was inviting me to run the project myself :-) I am the
lazy one.

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes:

> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 12:45:36 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On 07/01/2024 11:32, Marco Moock wrote:
>>> Am 05.01.2024 um 12:09:33 Uhr schrieb Scott:
>>
>>>> As someone about to move to VOIP, I am not arguing from my own
>>>> perspective (I will make sure I have backup) but suggesting there
>>>> is a problem for some members of society.
>>>
>>"A socialist is someone who wants the government to do to someone else
>>what he cant be arsed to do himself"
>
> You are right. I cannot be arsed with providing a universal telephone
> service across the United Kingdom. I'm a lazy bastard!
>>
>>> I agree with that, but I think that is a more general problem for
>>> them. No stair lifts will work, no fridge, no light. I think a
>>> power outage for multiple days is the big problem here.
>>>
>>
>>Indeed. There are people on life support kit at home. If the power
>>goes,
>>they are fucked.

Strangely, although the copper network isn't viable and is impossible to
finance, I am still stuck at the end of a copper exchange only line,
with a lousy 12Mbs broadband. I would have thought the telcos would be
falling over themselves to change that.

On Sun, 07 Jan 2024 16:17:48 +0000, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

>Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 12:45:36 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On 07/01/2024 11:32, Marco Moock wrote:
>>>> Am 05.01.2024 um 12:09:33 Uhr schrieb Scott:
>>>
>>>>> As someone about to move to VOIP, I am not arguing from my own
>>>>> perspective (I will make sure I have backup) but suggesting there
>>>>> is a problem for some members of society.
>>>>
>>>"A socialist is someone who wants the government to do to someone else
>>>what he cant be arsed to do himself"
>>
>> You are right. I cannot be arsed with providing a universal telephone
>> service across the United Kingdom. I'm a lazy bastard!
>>>
>>>> I agree with that, but I think that is a more general problem for
>>>> them. No stair lifts will work, no fridge, no light. I think a
>>>> power outage for multiple days is the big problem here.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Indeed. There are people on life support kit at home. If the power
>>>goes,
>>>they are fucked.
>
>Strangely, although the copper network isn't viable and is impossible to
>finance, I am still stuck at the end of a copper exchange only line,
>with a lousy 12Mbs broadband. I would have thought the telcos would be
>falling over themselves to change that.

I thought 12 Mbps was fast for an EO line :-)

Is the problem not if you are on a direct line to the exchange, there
will be no cabinet to connect you to?

Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 16:06:10 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 12:45:36 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/01/2024 11:32, Marco Moock wrote:
>>>>> Am 05.01.2024 um 12:09:33 Uhr schrieb Scott:
>>>>
>>>>>> As someone about to move to VOIP, I am not arguing from my own
>>>>>> perspective (I will make sure I have backup) but suggesting there is a
>>>>>> problem for some members of society.
>>>>>
>>>> "A socialist is someone who wants the government to do to someone else
>>>> what he cant be arsed to do himself"
>>>
>>> You are right. I cannot be arsed with providing a universal telephone
>>> service across the United Kingdom. I'm a lazy bastard!
>>>>
>> It’s down to money, not the telco being lazy. Feel free to propose a viable
>> economic model for a copper based (I assume that’s what you want) telephone
>> network that remains economically viable over the lifetime of the invested
>> assets.
>>
> I took it TNF was inviting me to run the project myself :-) I am the
> lazy one.
>

Ok, then you are excused :)

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 12:45:36 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/01/2024 11:32, Marco Moock wrote:
>>>> Am 05.01.2024 um 12:09:33 Uhr schrieb Scott:
>>>
>>>>> As someone about to move to VOIP, I am not arguing from my own
>>>>> perspective (I will make sure I have backup) but suggesting there
>>>>> is a problem for some members of society.
>>>>
>>> "A socialist is someone who wants the government to do to someone else
>>> what he cant be arsed to do himself"
>>
>> You are right. I cannot be arsed with providing a universal telephone
>> service across the United Kingdom. I'm a lazy bastard!
>>>
>>>> I agree with that, but I think that is a more general problem for
>>>> them. No stair lifts will work, no fridge, no light. I think a
>>>> power outage for multiple days is the big problem here.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed. There are people on life support kit at home. If the power
>>> goes,
>>> they are fucked.
>
> Strangely, although the copper network isn't viable and is impossible to
> finance, I am still stuck at the end of a copper exchange only line,
> with a lousy 12Mbs broadband. I would have thought the telcos would be
> falling over themselves to change that.
>

They will, at the point where sweating the existing exchange assets becomes
more expensive than getting a fibre line put in. And if you are in a rural
area BT will be using your lack of provision as a lever to get public
subsidy.

Am 07.01.2024 um 16:17:48 Uhr schrieb Richmond:

> Strangely, although the copper network isn't viable and is impossible
> to finance, I am still stuck at the end of a copper exchange only
> line, with a lousy 12Mbs broadband. I would have thought the telcos
> would be falling over themselves to change that.

Here in Germany we still have many people who only have less than 10
MBit/s.
I was in France (Normany, rural area) in 2016 and the sync was stable
with 300 kBit/s.

Am 07.01.2024 um 12:58:43 Uhr schrieb Richmond:

> Marco Moock <mm+usenet-es@dorfdsl.de> writes:
>
> > Then it is their problem.
>
> No it isn't because everything was fine until Virgin Media forced a
> change. Let's not forget who is paying.

Is it so hard for people not to unplug their equipment, after they were
told so?

Did they unplug their cable TV amplifier because they didn't know what
it does?
Did they unplug their DECT base station from power?

> > There is an instruction manual that tells the
> > purpose of it. Another way is to place a sticky note on the socket
> > to tell then not to unplug it.
>
> I didn't see any instruction manual actually. I am sure Virgin Media
> would agree with you. I expect they think everyone is a 25 year old
> telephone engineer.

I am 22 and not a telephone engineer, although I am very interested in
that stuff.
My grandparents (over 80) did understand that unplugging the equipment
make it non-functional.
People can understand that.

> But why didn't they stick a note on it?

Because it is almost logical that a device only works when it is
powered.

On 07/01/2024 15:49, Scott wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 12:45:36 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 07/01/2024 11:32, Marco Moock wrote:
>>> Am 05.01.2024 um 12:09:33 Uhr schrieb Scott:
>>
>>>> As someone about to move to VOIP, I am not arguing from my own
>>>> perspective (I will make sure I have backup) but suggesting there is a
>>>> problem for some members of society.
>>>
>> "A socialist is someone who wants the government to do to someone else
>> what he cant be arsed to do himself"
>
> You are right. I cannot be arsed with providing a universal telephone
> service across the United Kingdom. I'm a lazy bastard!

There is no need for you or anyone to supply a universal telephone
service. The requirement is for you to supply a reliable telephone
service *for yourself*.

You remind me of my wheelchair bound acquaintances. Almost none of the
mandatory and expensive disabled regulations that applied to the new
accomodation they bought, were in any way useful.

In all case they spent thousands on adapting the properties to their
specific needs.

If instead of mandating all the crap the government mandates, they had
simply charged a fixed fee per new build room to go into a disabled
fund, and given that money to those who actually needed it, the country
would be better off, and the disabled occupants would have got what they
needed. Free.

Its the same with all these services provided by or mandated by
government. A huge waste of money.

Cut taxes, and stop providing services. Or provide vouchers for
services. How many woke gender bender schools would exist it parents
had the money and the choice where to send their kids?

--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon
emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent
renewable energy.

On 07/01/2024 16:17, Scott wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 16:06:10 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 12:45:36 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/01/2024 11:32, Marco Moock wrote:
>>>>> Am 05.01.2024 um 12:09:33 Uhr schrieb Scott:
>>>>
>>>>>> As someone about to move to VOIP, I am not arguing from my own
>>>>>> perspective (I will make sure I have backup) but suggesting there is a
>>>>>> problem for some members of society.
>>>>>
>>>> "A socialist is someone who wants the government to do to someone else
>>>> what he cant be arsed to do himself"
>>>
>>> You are right. I cannot be arsed with providing a universal telephone
>>> service across the United Kingdom. I'm a lazy bastard!
>>>>
>> It’s down to money, not the telco being lazy. Feel free to propose a viable
>> economic model for a copper based (I assume that’s what you want) telephone
>> network that remains economically viable over the lifetime of the invested
>> assets.
>>
> I took it TNF was inviting me to run the project myself :-) I am the
> lazy one.

No. I was pointing out that you displayed the classic socialist
'concern' for *someone else* in order to justify the case for central
government interference.

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

Traditional

On 07/01/2024 16:17, Richmond wrote:
> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 12:45:36 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/01/2024 11:32, Marco Moock wrote:
>>>> Am 05.01.2024 um 12:09:33 Uhr schrieb Scott:
>>>
>>>>> As someone about to move to VOIP, I am not arguing from my own
>>>>> perspective (I will make sure I have backup) but suggesting there
>>>>> is a problem for some members of society.
>>>>
>>> "A socialist is someone who wants the government to do to someone else
>>> what he cant be arsed to do himself"
>>
>> You are right. I cannot be arsed with providing a universal telephone
>> service across the United Kingdom. I'm a lazy bastard!
>>>
>>>> I agree with that, but I think that is a more general problem for
>>>> them. No stair lifts will work, no fridge, no light. I think a
>>>> power outage for multiple days is the big problem here.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Indeed. There are people on life support kit at home. If the power
>>> goes,
>>> they are fucked.
>
> Strangely, although the copper network isn't viable and is impossible to
> finance, I am still stuck at the end of a copper exchange only line,
> with a lousy 12Mbs broadband. I would have thought the telcos would be
> falling over themselves to change that.

They are. But building it costs money too.

But 12Mbps is not their priority. I was on 4-6Mbps and my neighbours up
the road 1-2Mbps.

Now we all can have fibre to the premises.

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

Traditional

On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 12:07:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 07/01/2024 15:49, Scott wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 12:45:36 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/01/2024 11:32, Marco Moock wrote:
>>>> Am 05.01.2024 um 12:09:33 Uhr schrieb Scott:
>>>
>>>>> As someone about to move to VOIP, I am not arguing from my own
>>>>> perspective (I will make sure I have backup) but suggesting there is a
>>>>> problem for some members of society.
>>>>
>>> "A socialist is someone who wants the government to do to someone else
>>> what he cant be arsed to do himself"
>>
>> You are right. I cannot be arsed with providing a universal telephone
>> service across the United Kingdom. I'm a lazy bastard!
>
>There is no need for you or anyone to supply a universal telephone
>service. The requirement is for you to supply a reliable telephone
>service *for yourself*.

Which is exactly what I am doing by moving to VOIP and incorporating
back-up power and maintaining a mobile phone.
>
>You remind me of my wheelchair bound acquaintances. Almost none of the
>mandatory and expensive disabled regulations that applied to the new
>accomodation they bought, were in any way useful.
>
>In all case they spent thousands on adapting the properties to their
>specific needs.
>
>If instead of mandating all the crap the government mandates, they had
>simply charged a fixed fee per new build room to go into a disabled
>fund, and given that money to those who actually needed it, the country
>would be better off, and the disabled occupants would have got what they
>needed. Free.
>
>Its the same with all these services provided by or mandated by
>government. A huge waste of money.
>
>Cut taxes, and stop providing services. Or provide vouchers for
>services. How many woke gender bender schools would exist it parents
>had the money and the choice where to send their kids?

You remind me of the people who wanted to close all the train ticket
offices and leave any passengers unable to operate internet or ticket
vending machines or requiring other assistance to piss off.

On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 12:08:31 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 07/01/2024 16:17, Scott wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 16:06:10 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 12:45:36 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 07/01/2024 11:32, Marco Moock wrote:
>>>>>> Am 05.01.2024 um 12:09:33 Uhr schrieb Scott:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> As someone about to move to VOIP, I am not arguing from my own
>>>>>>> perspective (I will make sure I have backup) but suggesting there is a
>>>>>>> problem for some members of society.
>>>>>>
>>>>> "A socialist is someone who wants the government to do to someone else
>>>>> what he cant be arsed to do himself"
>>>>
>>>> You are right. I cannot be arsed with providing a universal telephone
>>>> service across the United Kingdom. I'm a lazy bastard!
>>>>>
>>> It’s down to money, not the telco being lazy. Feel free to propose a viable
>>> economic model for a copper based (I assume that’s what you want) telephone
>>> network that remains economically viable over the lifetime of the invested
>>> assets.
>>>
>> I took it TNF was inviting me to run the project myself :-) I am the
>> lazy one.
>
>No. I was pointing out that you displayed the classic socialist
>'concern' for *someone else* in order to justify the case for central
>government interference.

'There is no such thing as society, only individuals and their
families' ???

On 07/01/2024 16:40, Tweed wrote:
> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 12:45:36 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 07/01/2024 11:32, Marco Moock wrote:
>>>>> Am 05.01.2024 um 12:09:33 Uhr schrieb Scott:
>>>>
>>>>>> As someone about to move to VOIP, I am not arguing from my own
>>>>>> perspective (I will make sure I have backup) but suggesting there
>>>>>> is a problem for some members of society.
>>>>>
>>>> "A socialist is someone who wants the government to do to someone else
>>>> what he cant be arsed to do himself"
>>>
>>> You are right. I cannot be arsed with providing a universal telephone
>>> service across the United Kingdom. I'm a lazy bastard!
>>>>
>>>>> I agree with that, but I think that is a more general problem for
>>>>> them. No stair lifts will work, no fridge, no light. I think a
>>>>> power outage for multiple days is the big problem here.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. There are people on life support kit at home. If the power
>>>> goes,
>>>> they are fucked.
>>
>> Strangely, although the copper network isn't viable and is impossible to
>> finance, I am still stuck at the end of a copper exchange only line,
>> with a lousy 12Mbs broadband. I would have thought the telcos would be
>> falling over themselves to change that.
>>
>
> They will, at the point where sweating the existing exchange assets becomes
> more expensive than getting a fibre line put in. And if you are in a rural
> area BT will be using your lack of provision as a lever to get public
> subsidy.
>

Which is in a way fair enough.

The government has decreed that decent broadband is a national asset. An
almost sane decision and highly unusual. Probably because half of them
live in rural idylls, they want broadband there as well as in Islington.

BT has said, reasonably, that it can't afford to do it, on what OFCOM
allow it to make.

Targets have been set and subsidies agreed on.

"The Government’s target is for gigabit broadband to be available to 85% of
the UK by 2025 and nationwide by 2030. This paper discusses the background
to these targets and the Government’s policies on the rollout of gigabit
broadband."
....
"The Government expects that with the support of targeted policy reforms 80%
of UK premises can be reached through commercial investment alone. The
remaining 20% will require public subsidies"
....
"The Government has promised £5 billion to subsidise the roll-out of
gigabit-
broadband to the ‘hardest to reach’ premises in the country that will not be
reached by private investment (20% of the UK). This is around 5 million
premises, mostly in rural areas."

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8392/CBP-8392.pdf

--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

― Confucius

On 07/01/2024 20:00, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 07.01.2024 um 16:17:48 Uhr schrieb Richmond:
>
>> Strangely, although the copper network isn't viable and is impossible
>> to finance, I am still stuck at the end of a copper exchange only
>> line, with a lousy 12Mbs broadband. I would have thought the telcos
>> would be falling over themselves to change that.
>
> Here in Germany we still have many people who only have less than 10
> MBit/s.

Germany has always been massively backward - the state owned post
office/telephone had a monopoly for years.

I thinmk my sister in the Bonn area had a modem up to a couple of years ago.

> I was in France (Normany, rural area) in 2016 and the sync was stable
> with 300 kBit/s.
>

*shrug* dont go to the rural USA then. Nighmare.

--
“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that
the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

- Bertrand Russell

On 08/01/2024 12:12, Scott wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 12:07:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>>
>> Its the same with all these services provided by or mandated by
>> government. A huge waste of money.
>>
>> Cut taxes, and stop providing services. Or provide vouchers for
>> services. How many woke gender bender schools would exist it parents
>> had the money and the choice where to send their kids?
>
> You remind me of the people who wanted to close all the train ticket
> offices and leave any passengers unable to operate internet or ticket
> vending machines or requiring other assistance to piss off.

Completely different situation. Anyway as far as I can tell they already
have

--
There’s a mighty big difference between good, sound reasons and reasons
that sound good.

Burton Hillis (William Vaughn, American columnist)

On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 12:35:10 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 08/01/2024 12:12, Scott wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 12:07:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Its the same with all these services provided by or mandated by
>>> government. A huge waste of money.
>>>
>>> Cut taxes, and stop providing services. Or provide vouchers for
>>> services. How many woke gender bender schools would exist it parents
>>> had the money and the choice where to send their kids?
>>
>> You remind me of the people who wanted to close all the train ticket
>> offices and leave any passengers unable to operate internet or ticket
>> vending machines or requiring other assistance to piss off.
>
>Completely different situation. Anyway as far as I can tell they already
>have

There is probably a significant crossover in the demographics.

On 08/01/2024 12:14, Scott wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jan 2024 12:08:31 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 07/01/2024 16:17, Scott wrote:
>>> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 16:06:10 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>> <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 7 Jan 2024 12:45:36 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
>>>>> <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 07/01/2024 11:32, Marco Moock wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 05.01.2024 um 12:09:33 Uhr schrieb Scott:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As someone about to move to VOIP, I am not arguing from my own
>>>>>>>> perspective (I will make sure I have backup) but suggesting there is a
>>>>>>>> problem for some members of society.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> "A socialist is someone who wants the government to do to someone else
>>>>>> what he cant be arsed to do himself"
>>>>>
>>>>> You are right. I cannot be arsed with providing a universal telephone
>>>>> service across the United Kingdom. I'm a lazy bastard!
>>>>>>
>>>> It’s down to money, not the telco being lazy. Feel free to propose a viable
>>>> economic model for a copper based (I assume that’s what you want) telephone
>>>> network that remains economically viable over the lifetime of the invested
>>>> assets.
>>>>
>>> I took it TNF was inviting me to run the project myself :-) I am the
>>> lazy one.
>>
>> No. I was pointing out that you displayed the classic socialist
>> 'concern' for *someone else* in order to justify the case for central
>> government interference.
>
> 'There is no such thing as society, only individuals and their
> families' ???

Well at least Maggie had *some* grasp of metaphysics..

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

On 5 Jan 2024 16:22, The Natural Philosopher 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

"Many" people may have said that but they would be wrong.

On 6 Jan 2024 15:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 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...
>

But then they started selling Megastream over copper so that no longer
worked. And, even before Megastream over copper they would often
offer ISDN30 over copper anyway. I've has DASS2 and DPNSS over copper.

On 11/01/2024 07:50, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
> On 5 Jan 2024 16:22, The Natural Philosopher 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
>
> "Many" people may have said that but they would be wrong.
>
I am not sure it is 100% wrong.

There already is, in an FTTC cabinet, ducting and backhaul fibre.
There already is, in an FTTC cabinet, ducting to the consumer premises -
or near enough.

Why would they *not* rip out the DSlams and out in fibre splicing trays?

--
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities.”

― Voltaire, Questions sur les Miracles à M. Claparede, Professeur de
Théologie à Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de
M. de Voltaire

On 11/01/2024 07:59, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
> On 6 Jan 2024 15:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> 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...
>>
>
> But then they started selling Megastream over copper so that no longer
> worked. And, even before Megastream over copper they would often
> offer ISDN30 over copper anyway. I've has DASS2 and DPNSS over copper.
>
So what?

--
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the
greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most
obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of
conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which
they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by
thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

― Leo Tolstoy

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 11/01/2024 07:50, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>> On 5 Jan 2024 16:22, The Natural Philosopher 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
>>
>> "Many" people may have said that but they would be wrong.
>>
> I am not sure it is 100% wrong.
>
> There already is, in an FTTC cabinet, ducting and backhaul fibre.
> There already is, in an FTTC cabinet, ducting to the consumer premises -
> or near enough.
>
> Why would they *not* rip out the DSlams and out in fibre splicing trays?
>
>

Timing issues? You’d upset your existing FTTC customers. You need to build
and get working the FTTP network before you can migrate folk off FTTC.
There will need to be a degree of parallel running.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> There already is, in an FTTC cabinet, ducting and backhaul fibre.
> There already is, in an FTTC cabinet, ducting to the consumer premises -
> or near enough.
>
> Why would they *not* rip out the DSlams and out in fibre splicing trays?

All they need is a hole in the ground

<https://www.thinkbroadband.com/assets/images/news-2019/fibre-splitter.jpg>

They could end the electricity supply to the cabinets as that would no
longer be required, but do openreach have to pay "rent" for their
cabinets in the street?