In message <crhlrihokjr2cl232pgqurksmm0q6ihte1@4ax.com> at Wed, 31 Jan
2024 22:57:28, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> writes
>On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:27:18 +0000, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
[]
>>Being of a certain age, there are a number of people in that address
>>book who are no longer with us, yet I somehow never want to cross them
[]
>I agree. I also have a handwritten address book and I feel the same.

(Ditto [several such books, including inherited ones] and my electronic
one.)
[]
>may be preoccupied at that time. Especially parents of deceased
>children: I doubt anybody really "gets over" that sort of thing.

We've just had a discussion in a couple of genealogy 'groups that there
isn't a _single_ word ("bereaved parents" is probably the best _phrase_,
though I think it feels a little forced) to correspond to widow,
widower, and orphan. Apparently the word vilomeh (I may have the
spelling wrong) is gaining traction, but I'd never heard of it.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The squeamish will squeam a lot.
(Barry Norman on the film "300", in Radio Times 30 March-5 April 2013.)

In message <b1CuN.9476$h0q4.2793@fx02.ams1> at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 00:58:47,
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>On 01-Feb-24 0:07, kosmo wrote:
>> On 31.1.24 12:35, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> In message <ILmcnXt-a7e2mCf4nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> at
>>>Wed, 31 Jan 2024 08:30:34, kosmo <kosmo@whitnet.uk> writes
>>>> On 29.1.24 15:51, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>>> It's probably either the power supply for the base station - or,
>>>>>if it's  just the one handset (try switching them around), the
>>>>>rechargeable cells  in the handset (which I would say is the most likely).
>>>>
>>>> I did swap them around and changed the batteries in one of the
>>>>handsets - so I know it is the base statioin but I cannot see the
>>>>same design on ebay.  So deferred for now.
>>>>
>>> I just meant the power supply for the base station - or does the
>>>base station have a mains lead that goes right into it?
>> The base station is working - it is just not charging the handset
>>and if I swap handsets the one now in the cradle does not charge.  So
>>new ones IF we both to maintain the landline number under VOIP.

Of course, under VoIP - even if you keep the number - you need either a
VoIP-compatible 'phone, or an adapter (though that _may_ be built into
the router).
>>
>Sorry for mentioning the obvious, but are the charging contacts on the
>base station either coated with something, or bent so that they no
>longer make good contact with the phone?
>We have some Panasonic cordless phones which are very fussy and unless
>you place them back into the cradle 'just so', they fail to make
>contact and charge.
>
Very good point; I've come across that, too. Does the handset have a
light on it to show it is charging? That's worth watching as you wiggle,
though I imagine if it does you've already done that.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The squeamish will squeam a lot.
(Barry Norman on the film "300", in Radio Times 30 March-5 April 2013.)

On 01/02/2024 09:37, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Apparently the word vilomeh (I may have the spelling wrong) is gaining
> traction, but I'd never heard of it.

Vilomah, apparently.

--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK

On 1.2.24 09:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Very good point; I've come across that, too. Does the handset have a
> light on it to show it is charging? That's worth watching as you wiggle,
> though I imagine if it does you've already done that.

Yes. I think the internal electronics have "gorn".

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:39:39 +0000, Jenny M Benson
<NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>On 01/02/2024 09:37, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> Apparently the word vilomeh (I may have the spelling wrong) is gaining
>> traction, but I'd never heard of it.
>
>Vilomah, apparently.

I just had to look it up.

In message <7XGdnTj_eqhy6Sb4nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> at Thu, 1
Feb 2024 10:39:44, kosmo <kosmo@whitnet.uk> writes
>On 1.2.24 09:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> Very good point; I've come across that, too. Does the handset have a
>>light on it to show it is charging? That's worth watching as you
>>wiggle, though I imagine if it does you've already done that.
>
>Yes. I think the internal electronics have "gorn".
>
(Base station working, but not charging handset.) I still suspect a
mechanical fault - maybe inside the base station rather than just bent
contacts. Might be worth having a look, if it's screwed together rather
than plastic-welded or snapped-together. If the rest of the base station
is working (presumably providing the wireless connection to the handset)
then its power supply is OK; the circuitry that does the charging is
likely to be very simple (possibly even just a resistor). Compare the
internal arrangement with the base that _does_ charge the handset -
might just be a broken wire. (Though don't break _that_ one!)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The first banjo solo I played was actually just a series of mistakes. In fact
it was all the mistakes I knew at the time. - Tim Dowling, RT2015/6/20-26

On 01-Feb-24 9:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> That's worth watching as you wiggle,

Thank you for that John.
If "Watching as you Wiggle" was _not_ a children's TV programme from the
1950s, then it jolly well ought to be.

--
Sam Plusnet

In message <83SuN.43837$Qspa.3787@fx12.ams1> at Thu, 1 Feb 2024
19:13:07, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>On 01-Feb-24 9:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> That's worth watching as you wiggle,
>
>Thank you for that John.
>If "Watching as you Wiggle" was _not_ a children's TV programme from
>the 1950s, then it jolly well ought to be.
>
Like this radio one?
http://www.seansaunders.co.uk/andrew/bbc/Dancing_with_your_balls.mp3
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I hope you dream a pig.

On 02-Feb-24 0:48, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <83SuN.43837$Qspa.3787@fx12.ams1> at Thu, 1 Feb 2024
> 19:13:07, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>> On 01-Feb-24 9:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> That's worth watching as you wiggle,
>>
>> Thank you for that John.
>> If "Watching as you Wiggle" was _not_ a children's TV programme from
>> the 1950s, then it jolly well ought to be.
>>
> Like this radio one?
> http://www.seansaunders.co.uk/andrew/bbc/Dancing_with_your_balls.mp3

My Anti-Virus software did _not_ like that link.

--
Sam Plusnet

In message <tTavN.50993$Um93.31055@fx13.ams1> at Fri, 2 Feb 2024
18:54:17, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>On 02-Feb-24 0:48, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <83SuN.43837$Qspa.3787@fx12.ams1> at Thu, 1 Feb 2024
>>19:13:07, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>>> On 01-Feb-24 9:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>> That's worth watching as you wiggle,
>>>
>>> Thank you for that John.
>>> If "Watching as you Wiggle" was _not_ a children's TV programme from
>>>the 1950s, then it jolly well ought to be.
>>>
>> Like this radio one?
>> http://www.seansaunders.co.uk/andrew/bbc/Dancing_with_your_balls.mp3
>
>My Anti-Virus software did _not_ like that link.
>
Strange; it's mostly just a collection of old audio files, many classic
BBC ones like "the fleet's lit up". Maybe it was the filename it didn't
like? I can email it if you like - it's only 924 KB; it'll certainly
make yo smile!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If it's nice to look at and it makes you feel good, it's art. - Grayson Perry,
interviewed in Radio Times 12-18 October 2013

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> In message <tTavN.50993$Um93.31055@fx13.ams1> at Fri, 2 Feb 2024
> 18:54:17, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>>On 02-Feb-24 0:48, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> In message <83SuN.43837$Qspa.3787@fx12.ams1> at Thu, 1 Feb 2024
>>>19:13:07, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>>>> On 01-Feb-24 9:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>>> That's worth watching as you wiggle,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for that John.
>>>> If "Watching as you Wiggle" was _not_ a children's TV programme from
>>>>the 1950s, then it jolly well ought to be.
>>>>
>>> Like this radio one?
>>> http://www.seansaunders.co.uk/andrew/bbc/Dancing_with_your_balls.mp3
>>
>>My Anti-Virus software did _not_ like that link.
>>
> Strange; it's mostly just a collection of old audio files, many classic
> BBC ones like "the fleet's lit up". Maybe it was the filename it didn't
> like? I can email it if you like - it's only 924 KB; it'll certainly
> make yo smile!

I think you'll find it works if you replace http with https

Nick

In message <093c4c26543250243b69269b29d859af@www.novabbs.com> at Fri, 2
Feb 2024 20:36:47, nick <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> writes
>J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
>> In message <tTavN.50993$Um93.31055@fx13.ams1> at Fri, 2 Feb 2024
>>18:54:17, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>>>On 02-Feb-24 0:48, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>> In message <83SuN.43837$Qspa.3787@fx12.ams1> at Thu, 1 Feb 2024
>>>>19:13:07, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>>>>> On 01-Feb-24 9:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>>>> That's worth watching as you wiggle,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for that John.
>>>>> If "Watching as you Wiggle" was _not_ a children's TV programme
>>>>>from the 1950s, then it jolly well ought to be.
>>>>>
>>>> Like this radio one?
>>>> http://www.seansaunders.co.uk/andrew/bbc/Dancing_with_your_balls.mp3
>>>
>>>My Anti-Virus software did _not_ like that link.
>>>
>> Strange; it's mostly just a collection of old audio files, many
>>classic BBC ones like "the fleet's lit up". Maybe it was the filename
>>it didn't like? I can email it if you like - it's only 924 KB; it'll
>>certainly make yo smile!
>
>I think you'll find it works if you replace http with https
>
>Nick

I just tried - by clicking on the above - and it worked fine. Chrome
does show "Not secure" before the address, but it starts to play anyway.
I then tried with the added s, and Chrome said something like not
secure, with a couple of buttons, one of which was Advanced; clicking on
that let me get to it, but I think it used the http: version anyway.

Presumably different antivirus, browser, and operating system may all
have their own views on whether the user should be allowed to access
http: URLs.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Advertising is legalized lying. - H.G. Wells

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> In message <093c4c26543250243b69269b29d859af@www.novabbs.com> at Fri, 2
> Feb 2024 20:36:47, nick <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> writes
>>J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>
>>> In message <tTavN.50993$Um93.31055@fx13.ams1> at Fri, 2 Feb 2024
>>>18:54:17, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>>>>On 02-Feb-24 0:48, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>>> In message <83SuN.43837$Qspa.3787@fx12.ams1> at Thu, 1 Feb 2024
>>>>>19:13:07, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>>>>>> On 01-Feb-24 9:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>>>>> That's worth watching as you wiggle,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you for that John.
>>>>>> If "Watching as you Wiggle" was _not_ a children's TV programme
>>>>>>from the 1950s, then it jolly well ought to be.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Like this radio one?
>>>>> http://www.seansaunders.co.uk/andrew/bbc/Dancing_with_your_balls.mp3
>>>>
>>>>My Anti-Virus software did _not_ like that link.
>>>>
>>> Strange; it's mostly just a collection of old audio files, many
>>>classic BBC ones like "the fleet's lit up". Maybe it was the filename
>>>it didn't like? I can email it if you like - it's only 924 KB; it'll
>>>certainly make yo smile!
>>
>>I think you'll find it works if you replace http with https
>>
>>Nick

> I just tried - by clicking on the above - and it worked fine. Chrome
> does show "Not secure" before the address, but it starts to play anyway.
> I then tried with the added s, and Chrome said something like not
> secure, with a couple of buttons, one of which was Advanced; clicking on
> that let me get to it, but I think it used the http: version anyway.

> Presumably different antivirus, browser, and operating system may all
> have their own views on whether the user should be allowed to access
> http: URLs.

Yes. Using this wildly out of date Android/Chrome combination I get a blank white screen with http but a playable page with https

Nick

On 03-Feb-24 0:10, nick wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
>> In message <093c4c26543250243b69269b29d859af@www.novabbs.com> at Fri,
>> 2 Feb 2024 20:36:47, nick <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> writes
>>> J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <tTavN.50993$Um93.31055@fx13.ams1> at Fri, 2 Feb 2024
>>>> 18:54:17, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>>>>> On 02-Feb-24 0:48, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>>>> In message <83SuN.43837$Qspa.3787@fx12.ams1> at Thu, 1 Feb 2024
>>>>>> 19:13:07, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>>>>>>> On 01-Feb-24 9:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>>>>>> That's worth watching as you wiggle,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank you for that John.
>>>>>>> If "Watching as you Wiggle" was _not_ a children's TV programme
>>>>>>> from the 1950s, then it jolly well ought to be.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Like this radio one?
>>>>>> http://www.seansaunders.co.uk/andrew/bbc/Dancing_with_your_balls.mp3
>>>>>
>>>>> My Anti-Virus software did _not_ like that link.
>>>>>
>>>> Strange; it's mostly just a collection of old audio files, many
>>>> classic  BBC ones like "the fleet's lit up". Maybe it was the
>>>> filename it didn't  like? I can email it if you like - it's only 924
>>>> KB; it'll certainly  make yo smile!
>>>
>>> I think you'll find it works if you replace http with https
>>>
>>> Nick
>
>> I just tried - by clicking on the above - and it worked fine. Chrome
>> does show "Not secure" before the address, but it starts to play
>> anyway. I then tried with the added s, and Chrome said something like
>> not secure, with a couple of buttons, one of which was Advanced;
>> clicking on that let me get to it, but I think it used the http:
>> version anyway.
>
>> Presumably different antivirus, browser, and operating system may all
>> have their own views on whether the user should be allowed to access
>> http: URLs.
>
> Yes. Using this wildly out of date Android/Chrome combination I get a
> blank white screen with http but a playable page with https

After adding that "s", my anti-virus still refused to load it. It sayeth:

"Your connection to this web page is not safe due to an unmatching
security certificate.
This means that the certificate was issued for a different web address
than the one it is being used for"

--
Sam Plusnet

In message <I7hvN.22563$RZad.8206@fx14.ams1> at Sat, 3 Feb 2024
02:01:11, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>On 03-Feb-24 0:10, nick wrote:
>> J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>
>>> In message <093c4c26543250243b69269b29d859af@www.novabbs.com> at
>>>Fri, 2 Feb 2024 20:36:47, nick <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> writes
>>>> J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <tTavN.50993$Um93.31055@fx13.ams1> at Fri, 2 Feb 2024
>>>>>18:54:17, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>>>>>> On 02-Feb-24 0:48, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <83SuN.43837$Qspa.3787@fx12.ams1> at Thu, 1 Feb 2024
>>>>>>>19:13:07, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>>>>>>>> On 01-Feb-24 9:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>>>>>>> That's worth watching as you wiggle,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you for that John.
>>>>>>>> If "Watching as you Wiggle" was _not_ a children's TV programme
>>>>>>>>from the 1950s, then it jolly well ought to be.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like this radio one?
>>>>>>> http://www.seansaunders.co.uk/andrew/bbc/Dancing_with_your_balls.mp3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My Anti-Virus software did _not_ like that link.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Strange; it's mostly just a collection of old audio files, many
>>>>>classic  BBC ones like "the fleet's lit up". Maybe it was the
>>>>>filename it didn't  like? I can email it if you like - it's only
>>>>>924 KB; it'll certainly  make yo smile!
>>>>
>>>> I think you'll find it works if you replace http with https
>>>>
>>>> Nick
>>
>>> I just tried - by clicking on the above - and it worked fine. Chrome
>>>does show "Not secure" before the address, but it starts to play
>>>anyway. I then tried with the added s, and Chrome said something like
>>>not secure, with a couple of buttons, one of which was Advanced;
>>>clicking on that let me get to it, but I think it used the http:
>>>version anyway.
>>
>>> Presumably different antivirus, browser, and operating system may
>>>all have their own views on whether the user should be allowed to
>>>access http: URLs.
>> Yes. Using this wildly out of date Android/Chrome combination I get
>>a blank white screen with http but a playable page with https
>
>After adding that "s", my anti-virus still refused to load it. It sayeth:
>
>"Your connection to this web page is not safe due to an unmatching
>security certificate.
>This means that the certificate was issued for a different web address
>than the one it is being used for"
>
Oh dear, security gone mad. I wouldn't have thought that site _has_ a
security certificate: I get the impression it's been created by a
retired BBC sound person, or a friend of his, long before security
certificates and https: was thought of. My offer to email the file to
anyrat remains; I did wonder about putting that on my site, but am not
sure that'd be permissible. (Incidentally, can you access my site - for
example http://255soft.uk/temp/fanfare.mp3 - which also isn't secure -
though I see if I add the s, it still loads [maybe my hoster covers both
versions]?)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

They'd never heard of me; they didn't like me; they didn't like my speech;
they tutted and clucked and looked at their watches and eventually I sat down
to a thunderous lack of applause. - Barry Norman (on preceding Douglas Bader),
in RT 6-12 July 2013

On 29/01/2024 22:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> I never got to the point where I was paying _extra_ for the "anytime"
> calls. One of the (yearly it was then) haggletimes, I accepted a halving
> of speed from around 60 umbrellas to around 30 (more than fast enough
> for me - there's only me, and I don't download HD movies) for the offer
> of, as you say, upgrading from evening-and-weekend to anytime. I was
> paying twentysomething altogether for line rental, 30 broadband, and
> anytime calls.

A couple of renewals again, I found myself in the slightly bizarre
situation that they offered to significantly reduce the amount of money
they charged me each month, if I was willing to double my line speed up
to sixty-something Mb linespeed. Like you, my usage doesn't require
this, and I'm not convinced I could even notice the difference between
this and my previous 30-odd Mb line but, when they put it like that...
Last time I renewed, it wasn't actually cheaper to get the faster
linespeed but there was no significant saving if I reverted to the
slower speeds.

This leaves me paying in the low to mid twentysomethings for 60+Mb
broadband, with evening and weekend calls.

> The one good thing about the ending of POTS will, I hope, be the end of
> ever hearing the phrase "line rental" again. You'll just pay one fee,
> for broadband, with variations for speed. (Not counting extras like
> content packages.)

--
Best wishes, Serena
10. How much did the pirate pay to get his ears pierced? A buccaneer.

In message <upllpk$32ggk$1@dont-email.me> at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 15:23:32,
Serena Blanchflower <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> writes
>On 29/01/2024 22:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> I never got to the point where I was paying _extra_ for the "anytime"
>>calls. One of the (yearly it was then) haggletimes, I accepted a
>>halving of speed from around 60 umbrellas to around 30 (more than
>>fast enough for me - there's only me, and I don't download HD movies)
>>for the offer of, as you say, upgrading from evening-and-weekend to
>>anytime. I was paying twentysomething altogether for line rental, 30
>>broadband, and anytime calls.
>
>A couple of renewals again, I found myself in the slightly bizarre
>situation that they offered to significantly reduce the amount of money
>they charged me each month, if I was willing to double my line speed up
>to sixty-something Mb linespeed. Like you, my usage doesn't require

Yes, I think I had that one renewal. And/or (can't remember if it was
that or another time) there was a change of a few tens of pence for such
a change.

>this, and I'm not convinced I could even notice the difference between
>this and my previous 30-odd Mb line but, when they put it like that...
>Last time I renewed, it wasn't actually cheaper to get the faster
>linespeed but there was no significant saving if I reverted to the
>slower speeds.
>
>This leaves me paying in the low to mid twentysomethings for 60+Mb
>broadband, with evening and weekend calls.
>
I'd say next haggletime go for a halving to 30 but put the calls up to
anytime, but I think they're stopping landline altogether if they can
(assuming you're talking PlusNet), so they probably won't be keen on
that from now on. Not that I use my landline much at all - must be a few
minutes a month for ordinary calls - but there's always the case of when
you're on hold, which can soon eat away at any allowance. (I've had it
get close to the hour limit on free calls; when talking to friends or
family one can always hang up and redial, but not when on hold.)
>
>
>> The one good thing about the ending of POTS will, I hope, be the end
>>of ever hearing the phrase "line rental" again. You'll just pay one
>>fee, for broadband, with variations for speed. (Not counting extras
>>like content packages.)
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

DOS means never having to live hand-to-mouse.

On 03/02/2024 15:56, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>
> I'd say next haggletime go for a halving to 30 but put the calls up to
> anytime, but I think they're stopping landline altogether if they can
> (assuming you're talking PlusNet), so they probably won't be keen on
> that from now on. Not that I use my landline much at all - must be a few
> minutes a month for ordinary calls - but there's always the case of when
> you're on hold, which can soon eat away at any allowance. (I've had it
> get close to the hour limit on free calls; when talking to friends or
> family one can always hang up and redial, but not when on hold.)

If I wanted free calls any time, I would do - or, in all probability
would have done so long ago. As it is, I much prefer using my mobile
and am thinking of switching my landline to go immediately to
answerphone, with a message recommending people call me on my mobile,
but with an option for them to leave me a message and I'll get back to
them. This would allow me to make sure, before I abandon my landline
number altogether, that there's unlikely to be anyone I actually want to
talk to, who doesn't have my mobile number, or any other convenient way
of contacting me.

As it is, it's a distinct possibility that, come next haggle-time (in
about six months), I'll decide to abandon Plusnet. I think I was OK
last time, because I didn't change anything, but the two or three times
before that, it took them several months to work out the billing and to
charge me the right amount. It was starting to get very tedious.

--
Best wishes, Serena
Loving care is not something that those sound in mind and body 'do' for
others but a process that binds us together (Quaker Faith and Practice
12.01)

On 03-Feb-24 15:23, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
> On 29/01/2024 22:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> I never got to the point where I was paying _extra_ for the "anytime"
>> calls. One of the (yearly it was then) haggletimes, I accepted a
>> halving of speed from around 60 umbrellas to around 30 (more than fast
>> enough for me - there's only me, and I don't download HD movies) for
>> the offer of, as you say, upgrading from evening-and-weekend to
>> anytime. I was paying twentysomething altogether for line rental, 30
>> broadband, and anytime calls.
>
> A couple of renewals again, I found myself in the slightly bizarre
> situation that they offered to significantly reduce the amount of money
> they charged me each month, if I was willing to double my line speed up
> to sixty-something Mb linespeed.  Like you, my usage doesn't require
> this, and I'm  not convinced I could even notice the difference between
> this and my previous 30-odd Mb line but, when they put it like that...
> Last time I renewed, it wasn't actually cheaper to  get the faster
> linespeed but there was no significant saving if I reverted to the
> slower speeds.
>
> This leaves me paying in the low to mid twentysomethings for 60+Mb
> broadband, with evening and weekend calls.

Sounds good. I pay the high twenties for the same thing. I shudda
haggled more earnestly.

--
Sam Plusnet

In message <upm6sn$32ggk$2@dont-email.me> at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 20:15:19,
Serena Blanchflower <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> writes
[]
>If I wanted free calls any time, I would do - or, in all probability
>would have done so long ago. As it is, I much prefer using my mobile
>and am thinking of switching my landline to go immediately to
>answerphone, with a message recommending people call me on my mobile,
>but with an option for them to leave me a message and I'll get back to
>them. This would allow me to make sure, before I abandon my landline
>number altogether, that there's unlikely to be anyone I actually want
>to talk to, who doesn't have my mobile number, or any other convenient
>way of contacting me.

Sounds you are accustomed to having a monthly mobile contract, so paying
for both that and broadband. I've never had monthly mobile, so it'd be
an extra thing for me (unless I went for internet via mobile, which is
possible, though I gather less satisfactory).
>
>As it is, it's a distinct possibility that, come next haggle-time (in
>about six months), I'll decide to abandon Plusnet. I think I was OK
>last time, because I didn't change anything, but the two or three times
>before that, it took them several months to work out the billing and to
>charge me the right amount. It was starting to get very tedious.
>
Exactly the same here: the actual provision has been very good and
largely problem-free, and I'm rather reluctant to leave that, but having
to bug them to get the bills right after any change (or, this month, out
of the blue), especially now they have the annual increase as another
opportunity to screw things up, is indeed getting tedious. But we'll
see; there's definitely an aspect of "holding on to nurse".
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"When _I_ saw him, he was dead." "uh, he looked exactly the same when he was
alive, except he was vertical." (The Trouble with Harry)

On 03/02/2024 15:23, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>
> This leaves me paying in the low to mid twentysomethings for 60+Mb
> broadband, with evening and weekend calls.
>
We are paying mid-30s for a BT full fibre 100 contract which gives us
download speed of around 140 Mbps and seems very reliable. We don't
really need that much, but we did see occasional buffering previously at
50Mbps which has stopped and downloading on e.g. iPlayer is very quick.

We gave up on a landline phone while we were still in Italy about 10
years ago when the service became really poor. We had a landline number
in our first BT contract but never connected a handset to it. Not even
included in the contract any more.

On 04/02/2024 09:43, BrritSki wrote:
> On 03/02/2024 15:23, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>>
>> This leaves me paying in the low to mid twentysomethings for 60+Mb
>> broadband, with evening and weekend calls.
>>
> We are paying mid-30s for a BT full fibre 100 contract which gives us
> download speed of around 140 Mbps and seems very reliable. We don't
> really need that much, but we did see occasional buffering previously at
> 50Mbps which has stopped and downloading on e.g. iPlayer is very quick.
>
> We gave up on a landline phone while we were still in Italy about 10
> years ago when the service became really poor. We had a landline number
> in our first BT contract but never connected a handset to it. Not even
> included in the contract any more.

Mid-forties for Vodafone full fibre 160 Mbps plus unlimited calls/data
mobile. Probably overkill but works without problems in the house and
out, running heating and burglar alarm as well. No need for a landline
and almost no spamcallers on mobile (one every other month if that.
Number blocked, no probs).

--
Kate B

In message <l294i6Fp7uaU1@mid.individual.net> at Sun, 4 Feb 2024
09:43:34, BrritSki <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com> writes
[]
>We gave up on a landline phone while we were still in Italy about 10
>years ago when the service became really poor. We had a landline number
>in our first BT contract but never connected a handset to it. Not even
>included in the contract any more.

I can't _remember_ ever having had a problem with a BT landline, over 4x
years of adulthood and numerous addresses; certainly, none here since I
moved in in 2007. It seems to be one of the things that works well, and
comes under "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", but they are too far down
the hell-bent path now.

(Yes, I know the variations, such as "if it ain't broke, it hasn't been
fixed enough".)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Flobalob" actually means "Flowerpot" in Oddle-Poddle.

On 31/01/2024 17:32, Penny wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:53:29 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
> scrawled in the dust...
>
>> under the present system, when BT etc. cease a number, they keep
>> it fallow - I think for a few _years_ - before reallocating it.
>
> Really? Is that a new policy?
> When I activated the phone line here, back in 2007, we had endless calls
> for the previous user of the number, who seemed to owe a lot of people
> money. This continued for at least two years :(
same here when we came in 2005. The tax man was after him too.

On 3.2.24 20:15, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
> As it is, it's a distinct possibility that, come next haggle-time (in
> about six months), I'll decide to abandon Plusnet.

My problem is the excessive amount being charged by Sky for having a
dish. Apparently they no longer supply dishes and it is all done over
the t'internet - so with the daughter streaming upstairs and us
downstairs it means that copper is no longer enough to ensure no buffering.

Which means moving away from Plusnet ... I suspect it will be Zzoomm as
there is a termination point close by - but it means new boxes, holes in
wall, probably additional wiring and with a new router getting it to
behave and sorting out the wireless - probably time to replace the
internet over the internal wiring with a proper modern solution.

It is going to be expensive.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics