Notice that in 1970 only 35% of people had landlines, and in 1985 fewer
than today, and yet, it was possible to finance them. But now we are
told it just can't be done.

If people like to have landlines but not use them for phone calls then
they will just have to make the money from a line rental.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/289158/telephone-presence-in-households-in-the-uk/

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> Notice that in 1970 only 35% of people had landlines, and in 1985 fewer
> than today, and yet, it was possible to finance them. But now we are
> told it just can't be done.
>
> If people like to have landlines but not use them for phone calls then
> they will just have to make the money from a line rental.
>
> https://www.statista.com/statistics/289158/telephone-presence-in-households-in-the-uk/
>

Nobody, well few, would be willing to pay the true economic cost of a
copper landline. The economies of scale are vanishing. There were few
domestic landlines in the 1970s because they were expensive. The people who
subscribed were willing to pay the cost because they could a) perceive a
benefit and b) could afford it. We now have, apart from during power cuts,
communication systems that most people perceive as more useful than a
landline. They won’t be willing to pay more just to keep a landline for use
in a power cut.

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

> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>> Notice that in 1970 only 35% of people had landlines, and in 1985
>> fewer than today, and yet, it was possible to finance them. But now
>> we are told it just can't be done.
>>
>> If people like to have landlines but not use them for phone calls
>> then they will just have to make the money from a line rental.
>>
>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/289158/telephone-presence-in-households-in-the-uk/
>>
>
> Nobody, well few, would be willing to pay the true economic cost of a
> copper landline. The economies of scale are vanishing. There were few
> domestic landlines in the 1970s because they were expensive. The
> people who subscribed were willing to pay the cost because they could
> a) perceive a benefit and b) could afford it. We now have, apart from
> during power cuts, communication systems that most people perceive as
> more useful than a landline. They won’t be willing to pay more just to
> keep a landline for use in a power cut.

What is the true economic cost of a copper landline? If they increase
the line rental to the true cost, then people can either pay it, or
cancel their landline. But that's not what is happening at the
moment. People who have a landline are being told that they have to have
VOIP or they won't be able to make calls. That's coming from Virgin
Media. Even people who don't have the capacity to understand or even
receive their text messages are being told that. And then they give them
an emergency phone which they wouldn't be able to find in the dark and
would probably fall down looking for it and learn the hard way that
their fall alarm no longer works.

The moral of the story is that corporations work for shareholders and
not for anyone else. Customers are a means to an end.

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
> >> Notice that in 1970 only 35% of people had landlines, and in 1985
> >> fewer than today, and yet, it was possible to finance them. But now
> >> we are told it just can't be done.
> >>
> >> If people like to have landlines but not use them for phone calls
> >> then they will just have to make the money from a line rental.
> >>
> >> https://www.statista.com/statistics/289158/telephone-presence-in-househ
> >> olds-in-the-uk/
> >>
> >
> > Nobody, well few, would be willing to pay the true economic cost of a
> > copper landline. The economies of scale are vanishing. There were few
> > domestic landlines in the 1970s because they were expensive. The
> > people who subscribed were willing to pay the cost because they could
> > a) perceive a benefit and b) could afford it. We now have, apart from
> > during power cuts, communication systems that most people perceive as
> > more useful than a landline. They won’t be willing to pay more just to
> > keep a landline for use in a power cut.
>
> What is the true economic cost of a copper landline?

A lot of the cost for domestic lines is in the dustwork, which is common
to copper and fibre. They are equally prone to mechanical damage, so
there is no advantage to either from that - but fibre is more difficult
to repair. Most of the 'copper' faults are actually insuation failure
through aging (noisy drop-wires etc.), presumably fibre will be equally
prone to damage once the outer sheath has broken down due to UV light
and the support structures begin to weaken, and it will be more
difficult to join-in a replacement length.

For long-distance routes, more data can be accommodated in a dusct using
fibre, so fibre makes sense in that application - and the cost of
battery and generator-backup would be a much smaller relative expense on
a major infrastructure like a long-distance data trunk.

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

Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>> Notice that in 1970 only 35% of people had landlines, and in 1985
>>>> fewer than today, and yet, it was possible to finance them. But now
>>>> we are told it just can't be done.
>>>>
>>>> If people like to have landlines but not use them for phone calls
>>>> then they will just have to make the money from a line rental.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/289158/telephone-presence-in-househ
>>>> olds-in-the-uk/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nobody, well few, would be willing to pay the true economic cost of a
>>> copper landline. The economies of scale are vanishing. There were few
>>> domestic landlines in the 1970s because they were expensive. The
>>> people who subscribed were willing to pay the cost because they could
>>> a) perceive a benefit and b) could afford it. We now have, apart from
>>> during power cuts, communication systems that most people perceive as
>>> more useful than a landline. They won’t be willing to pay more just to
>>> keep a landline for use in a power cut.
>>
>> What is the true economic cost of a copper landline?
>
> A lot of the cost for domestic lines is in the dustwork, which is common
> to copper and fibre. They are equally prone to mechanical damage, so
> there is no advantage to either from that - but fibre is more difficult
> to repair. Most of the 'copper' faults are actually insuation failure
> through aging (noisy drop-wires etc.), presumably fibre will be equally
> prone to damage once the outer sheath has broken down due to UV light
> and the support structures begin to weaken, and it will be more
> difficult to join-in a replacement length.
>
> For long-distance routes, more data can be accommodated in a dusct using
> fibre, so fibre makes sense in that application - and the cost of
> battery and generator-backup would be a much smaller relative expense on
> a major infrastructure like a long-distance data trunk.
>
>

A major cost is the leasing of the exchange buildings (BT/OR sold them
off), together with their associated tax and running costs. The plan is to
reduce the approx 4000 buildings to 1000.

On 20/12/2023 11:03, Tweed wrote:

>
> A major cost is the leasing of the exchange buildings (BT/OR sold them
> off), together with their associated tax and running costs. The plan is to
> reduce the approx 4000 buildings to 1000.
>

s a sound principle of business that you concentrate on what only you
can do, and subcontract everything else out.

Openreach isn't in the business of property management and maintenance.
And its better off investing in fibre than buildings.

Some of those exchanges will be in prime building sites and be worth a
fortune. Our local one could have a very prestigious house, or 3-4
'affordable' ones plonked on the site.

--
“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

On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 12:49:26 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 19/12/2023 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> As far as call volumes go, well yes. Who uses a landline if they have a
>> mobile?
>
>
>I always use my landline in preference to the mobile.
>
>I prefer the reliable connection and don't like people calling me on my
>mobile unnecessarily so try to avoid too many people (or more important,
>companies) getting the number.
>
>

I'm somewhat "old school" in that I prefer the landline too. The
reasons are:

1) There are organisations/people that I only want to deal with when
I'm at home, or conversely, I don't want to deal with if I'm out and
about.

2) Even though I'm within a city boundary the mobile signal, O2,
Three, is awful. I've just had a long phone call with a family member
and it only works well if it is on the landline and my mobile is just
not as good a quality sound if over WhatsApp for instance.

I can see BTs POV quite readily and the government should both ensure
that the infrastructure is in place before granting licences and
provide backup facilities to vulnerable people as part of social care.
But pigs might fly.

--
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?

On Sun, 17 Dec 2023 16:29:24 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:

>Theo wrote:
>
>> I wonder when it'll become sensible for everyone vulnerable to have a solar
>> panel and a small battery. Size it so that even in the depths of winter it
>> would provide enough power to keep critical comms going
>
>LiFePO₄ are bad at charging in winter, so you're probably back to
>lead-acid and replace every 3-4 years ...

Now I find out after not long* having bought one for my golf cart.

* It managed last winter

--
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?

On 20/12/2023 11:30, AnthonyL wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 12:49:26 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> On 19/12/2023 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> As far as call volumes go, well yes. Who uses a landline if they have a
>>> mobile?
>>
>>
>> I always use my landline in preference to the mobile.
>>
>> I prefer the reliable connection and don't like people calling me on my
>> mobile unnecessarily so try to avoid too many people (or more important,
>> companies) getting the number.
>>
>>
>
> I'm somewhat "old school" in that I prefer the landline too. The
> reasons are:
>
> 1) There are organisations/people that I only want to deal with when
> I'm at home, or conversely, I don't want to deal with if I'm out and
> about.
>

you don't have voicemail on your mobile?

> 2) Even though I'm within a city boundary the mobile signal, O2,
> Three, is awful. I've just had a long phone call with a family member
> and it only works well if it is on the landline and my mobile is just
> not as good a quality sound if over WhatsApp for instance.
>

My mobile, O2 switches to WiFi calling when at home. As most are moved
to VOIP won't the call quality decrease?

> I can see BTs POV quite readily and the government should both ensure
> that the infrastructure is in place before granting licences and
> provide backup facilities to vulnerable people as part of social care.
> But pigs might fly.
>
>

I feel BT (and the rest) pay lip service to this. However a major
problem is that the vulnerable, especially those who are vulnerable
don't like admitting it and don't want to be a "burden"....

Dave

David Wade wrote:

> you don't have voicemail on your mobile?

About the first thing I disable on a mobile ...

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> David Wade wrote:
>
> > you don't have voicemail on your mobile?
>
> About the first thing I disable on a mobile ...

The sources of many official calls (banks, NHS) don't leave messages anyway.

If you are a real human wanting to contact you know SMS exists, right?

Theo

On 21/12/2023 10:41, Theo wrote:
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> David Wade wrote:
>>
>>> you don't have voicemail on your mobile?
>>
>> About the first thing I disable on a mobile ...
>
> The sources of many official calls (banks, NHS) don't leave messages anyway.
>
> If you are a real human wanting to contact you know SMS exists, right?
>
> Theo

The NHS is not staffed by RealHumans™

They *always* leave voice messages when arranging appointments.
--
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere,
diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
― Groucho Marx

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 21:07:25 +0000, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid>
wrote:

>On 20/12/2023 11:30, AnthonyL wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 12:49:26 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/12/2023 12:45, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> As far as call volumes go, well yes. Who uses a landline if they have a
>>>> mobile?
>>>
>>>
>>> I always use my landline in preference to the mobile.
>>>
>>> I prefer the reliable connection and don't like people calling me on my
>>> mobile unnecessarily so try to avoid too many people (or more important,
>>> companies) getting the number.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm somewhat "old school" in that I prefer the landline too. The
>> reasons are:
>>
>> 1) There are organisations/people that I only want to deal with when
>> I'm at home, or conversely, I don't want to deal with if I'm out and
>> about.
>>
>
>you don't have voicemail on your mobile?
>

No. I don't have a contract so it would cost to answer. I have
answerphone on the landline.

--
AnthonyL

Why ever wait to finish a job before starting the next?

On 20 Dec 2023 11:03, Tweed wrote:
> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>> Notice that in 1970 only 35% of people had landlines, and in 1985
>>>>> fewer than today, and yet, it was possible to finance them. But now
>>>>> we are told it just can't be done.
>>>>>
>>>>> If people like to have landlines but not use them for phone calls
>>>>> then they will just have to make the money from a line rental.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/289158/telephone-presence-in-househ
>>>>> olds-in-the-uk/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nobody, well few, would be willing to pay the true economic cost of a
>>>> copper landline. The economies of scale are vanishing. There were few
>>>> domestic landlines in the 1970s because they were expensive. The
>>>> people who subscribed were willing to pay the cost because they could
>>>> a) perceive a benefit and b) could afford it. We now have, apart from
>>>> during power cuts, communication systems that most people perceive as
>>>> more useful than a landline. They won’t be willing to pay more just to
>>>> keep a landline for use in a power cut.
>>>
>>> What is the true economic cost of a copper landline?
>>
>> A lot of the cost for domestic lines is in the dustwork, which is common
>> to copper and fibre. They are equally prone to mechanical damage, so
>> there is no advantage to either from that - but fibre is more difficult
>> to repair. Most of the 'copper' faults are actually insuation failure
>> through aging (noisy drop-wires etc.), presumably fibre will be equally
>> prone to damage once the outer sheath has broken down due to UV light
>> and the support structures begin to weaken, and it will be more
>> difficult to join-in a replacement length.
>>
>> For long-distance routes, more data can be accommodated in a dusct using
>> fibre, so fibre makes sense in that application - and the cost of
>> battery and generator-backup would be a much smaller relative expense on
>> a major infrastructure like a long-distance data trunk.
>>
>>
>
> A major cost is the leasing of the exchange buildings (BT/OR sold them
> off), together with their associated tax and running costs. The plan is to
> reduce the approx 4000 buildings to 1000.

And, to some extent, BT don't have a choice. Once the lease is up, the
owner can evict BT.

That has happened in some exchanges already

Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> writes:
> On 20 Dec 2023 11:03, Tweed wrote:
>> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Notice that in 1970 only 35% of people had landlines, and in 1985
>>>>>> fewer than today, and yet, it was possible to finance them. But now
>>>>>> we are told it just can't be done.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If people like to have landlines but not use them for phone calls
>>>>>> then they will just have to make the money from a line rental.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/289158/telephone-presence-in-househ
>>>>>> olds-in-the-uk/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody, well few, would be willing to pay the true economic cost of a
>>>>> copper landline. The economies of scale are vanishing. There were few
>>>>> domestic landlines in the 1970s because they were expensive. The
>>>>> people who subscribed were willing to pay the cost because they could
>>>>> a) perceive a benefit and b) could afford it. We now have, apart from
>>>>> during power cuts, communication systems that most people perceive as
>>>>> more useful than a landline. They won’t be willing to pay more just to
>>>>> keep a landline for use in a power cut.
>>>>
>>>> What is the true economic cost of a copper landline?
>>>
>>> A lot of the cost for domestic lines is in the dustwork, which is common
>>> to copper and fibre. They are equally prone to mechanical damage, so
>>> there is no advantage to either from that - but fibre is more difficult
>>> to repair. Most of the 'copper' faults are actually insuation failure
>>> through aging (noisy drop-wires etc.), presumably fibre will be equally
>>> prone to damage once the outer sheath has broken down due to UV light
>>> and the support structures begin to weaken, and it will be more
>>> difficult to join-in a replacement length.
>>>
>>> For long-distance routes, more data can be accommodated in a dusct using
>>> fibre, so fibre makes sense in that application - and the cost of
>>> battery and generator-backup would be a much smaller relative expense on
>>> a major infrastructure like a long-distance data trunk.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> A major cost is the leasing of the exchange buildings (BT/OR sold them
>> off), together with their associated tax and running costs. The plan is to
>> reduce the approx 4000 buildings to 1000.
>
> And, to some extent, BT don't have a choice. Once the lease is up, the
> owner can evict BT.
>
> That has happened in some exchanges already

Are there actually exchange buildings are being completely emptied? I had
assumed that the footprint was much smaller, but they were still being used as
interconnection points between the distribution end and the wider network, and
the dates I'd seen in print for exchanges being fully retired were in the late
2020s/2030s.

--

Chris Stiles wrote:

> Are there actually exchange buildings are being completely emptied?

I've certainly seen some ex-BT buildings go up for sale, but those could
have been cases where there were multiple exchanges in a given town, and
they were able to consolidate ...

angus@magsys.co.uk (Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd) writes:

>> Are there actually exchange buildings are being completely emptied?
>
> Chelsea telephone exchange was emptied and sold a few years ago, with all
> cabling redirected to South Kensington exchange. But that is rare.

That's what I thought. AFAICT their current plans are to go from 5600 to
around 1000 by the 2030s, but even that sees them vacating 'only' 100
exchanges by the end of 2030, with only 3 to go by 2025 (Deddington, Kenton
Road and Ballycare).

> Several City of London exchanges were consolidated 30 to 40 years ago when
> digital exchanges arrived and the old buildings sold.

Yes, good example of a similar - and earlier - technological shift.

--

On 4 Jan 2024 21:16, Chris Stiles wrote:
> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> writes:
>> On 20 Dec 2023 11:03, Tweed wrote:
>>> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Notice that in 1970 only 35% of people had landlines, and in 1985
>>>>>>> fewer than today, and yet, it was possible to finance them. But now
>>>>>>> we are told it just can't be done.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If people like to have landlines but not use them for phone calls
>>>>>>> then they will just have to make the money from a line rental.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/289158/telephone-presence-in-househ
>>>>>>> olds-in-the-uk/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nobody, well few, would be willing to pay the true economic cost of a
>>>>>> copper landline. The economies of scale are vanishing. There were few
>>>>>> domestic landlines in the 1970s because they were expensive. The
>>>>>> people who subscribed were willing to pay the cost because they could
>>>>>> a) perceive a benefit and b) could afford it. We now have, apart from
>>>>>> during power cuts, communication systems that most people perceive as
>>>>>> more useful than a landline. They wonâ?Tt be willing to pay more just to
>>>>>> keep a landline for use in a power cut.
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the true economic cost of a copper landline?
>>>>
>>>> A lot of the cost for domestic lines is in the dustwork, which is common
>>>> to copper and fibre. They are equally prone to mechanical damage, so
>>>> there is no advantage to either from that - but fibre is more difficult
>>>> to repair. Most of the 'copper' faults are actually insuation failure
>>>> through aging (noisy drop-wires etc.), presumably fibre will be equally
>>>> prone to damage once the outer sheath has broken down due to UV light
>>>> and the support structures begin to weaken, and it will be more
>>>> difficult to join-in a replacement length.
>>>>
>>>> For long-distance routes, more data can be accommodated in a dusct using
>>>> fibre, so fibre makes sense in that application - and the cost of
>>>> battery and generator-backup would be a much smaller relative expense on
>>>> a major infrastructure like a long-distance data trunk.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> A major cost is the leasing of the exchange buildings (BT/OR sold them
>>> off), together with their associated tax and running costs. The plan is to
>>> reduce the approx 4000 buildings to 1000.
>>
>> And, to some extent, BT don't have a choice. Once the lease is up, the
>> owner can evict BT.
>>
>> That has happened in some exchanges already
>
> Are there actually exchange buildings are being completely emptied? I had
> assumed that the footprint was much smaller, but they were still being used as
> interconnection points between the distribution end and the wider network, and
> the dates I'd seen in print for exchanges being fully retired were in the late
> 2020s/2030s.

Yes, some have already been emptied and disposed of.
Even when there is a plan to create an OHP, that won't be the building
and, more likely to be a fraction of the site.

Some sites will still be extensive to home a TEC or similar.

On Fri, 5 Jan 2024 08:59 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), angus@magsys.co.uk
(Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd) wrote:
>> Are there actually exchange buildings are being completely emptied?
>
> Chelsea telephone exchange was emptied and sold a few years ago, with all
> cabling redirected to South Kensington exchange. But that is rare.

That was because the landlord kicked BT and Openreach out

Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> writes:
> Yes, some have already been emptied and disposed of.

Do you have/know of a list of the consolidated exchanges? The lists I've seen
have been fairly short (3-4 entries).

> Even when there is a plan to create an OHP, that won't be the building
> and, more likely to be a fraction of the site.
>
> Some sites will still be extensive to home a TEC or similar.

Yes, I'd assumed the new installations would be a lot smaller.

--

On 10 Jan 2024 10:46, Chris Stiles wrote:
> Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> writes:
>> Yes, some have already been emptied and disposed of.
>
> Do you have/know of a list of the consolidated exchanges? The lists I've seen
> have been fairly short (3-4 entries).

Unfortunately I no longer have access to that detail. Sorry