On 14/07/2023 14:12, Andy Burns wrote:
> Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
>
>> J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>> They're not going to sell copper voice lines (to new customers) after
>>>> this September.
>>>
>>> Presumably they'll withdraw it from _existing_ customers not long after
>>> that.
>>
>> Do you mean external lines just to the house with access problems or
>> the whole grid? Either way that will be years of work for Openreach.
>
> Within 2 years, if a house still has copper, it will *only* be for
> broadband, any form of phoneline will be VoIP over the broadband one way
> or another.

FTAOD that's true even if the copper is coax from Virgin Media.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 14/07/2023 14:56, Theo wrote:
> > In your case I'd get the FTTP installed and working, and once done port out
> > your number to a third party provider which will also cease your copper
> > broadband. More details here:
> > http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/Telephones,_analogue_to_digital_conversion
>
> As you possibly recall I know about (and contributed a bit to) that
> helpful page. But (unless I've missed a change) it doesn't cover my
> precise circs - viz Virgin Media BB & phone. So I'm exploring taking the
> number to Hyperoptic and then on to separate VOIP..

Yes, I was aware you were part of that thread. But I'm not sure why you'd
want to take the number to Hyperoptic: surely you get the HO connection set
up, keeping the Virgin until HO is all working. Then you transfer out the
number to a separate VOIP provider.

In BT land that causes the broadband contract to be cancelled.
In Virgin land I'm not sure if it does, but either way you should be able to
extract the number to your VOIP provider. Once extracted, cancel the Virgin
contract.

There may be a way to finesse the process to reduce the time you're paying
for two contracts, but I wouldn't cancel Virgin until FTTP is installed,
because it's quite possible the crew turns up and says 'oh the tachyons are
negatively polarised on your property[*], we can't do those, another crew
will be back next week'. And you wouldn't want to be without service for an
indeterminate length of time until they come back appropriately equipped.

In the case of transfers between firms with distinct physical infrastructure
(Openreach to cable, cable to Openreach, Openreach to altnet FTTP) there's
never been a one-day porting operation AFAIAA. In other words there's
always been a time where you either had both working concurrently (perhaps
with a different number), or a gap where you had neither, but never a system
where you wake up on one network and go to sleep with a new network live and
the old one completely dead: there's always been overlap in that case.

Theo

[*] other, more plausible, excuses are available.

On 14/07/2023 21:57, Theo wrote:
> Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 14/07/2023 14:56, Theo wrote:
>>> In your case I'd get the FTTP installed and working, and once done port out
>>> your number to a third party provider which will also cease your copper
>>> broadband. More details here:
>>> http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php/Telephones,_analogue_to_digital_conversion
>>
>> As you possibly recall I know about (and contributed a bit to) that
>> helpful page. But (unless I've missed a change) it doesn't cover my
>> precise circs - viz Virgin Media BB & phone. So I'm exploring taking the
>> number to Hyperoptic and then on to separate VOIP..
>
> Yes, I was aware you were part of that thread. But I'm not sure why you'd
> want to take the number to Hyperoptic: surely you get the HO connection set
> up, keeping the Virgin until HO is all working. Then you transfer out the
> number to a separate VOIP provider.
>
> In BT land that causes the broadband contract to be cancelled.
> In Virgin land I'm not sure if it does, but either way you should be able to
> extract the number to your VOIP provider. Once extracted, cancel the Virgin
> contract.
>
> There may be a way to finesse the process to reduce the time you're paying
> for two contracts, but I wouldn't cancel Virgin until FTTP is installed,
> because it's quite possible the crew turns up and says 'oh the tachyons are
> negatively polarised on your property[*], we can't do those, another crew
> will be back next week'. And you wouldn't want to be without service for an
> indeterminate length of time until they come back appropriately equipped.
>
> In the case of transfers between firms with distinct physical infrastructure
> (Openreach to cable, cable to Openreach, Openreach to altnet FTTP) there's
> never been a one-day porting operation AFAIAA. In other words there's
> always been a time where you either had both working concurrently (perhaps
> with a different number), or a gap where you had neither, but never a system
> where you wake up on one network and go to sleep with a new network live and
> the old one completely dead: there's always been overlap in that case.
>
Hyperoptic offer a rolling monthly contract so I can port the number to
them and then onto another VOIP provider without financial penalty.
Local anecdote (in what has been v much cable internet land for 20+
years) is that that seems to work better - possibly because the "full
service" providers have a bigger financial incentive to get the telephony.

As for the risk of a break in broadband service, it is less than 10m
from the pole to our wall; Hyperoptic do a survey in advance; and they
won't get the job if they don't agree in advance to use my conduit
through the wall and under the floor rather than drill a hole over the
front door :)

And we have good 4g coverage for mobile data to fall back on.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

In message <u8roc0$23qk$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 14 Jul 2023 15:07:44,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
[]
>Number portability exists for voip. I’ve moved a number that was originally
>BT to Sipgate (voip) and then to Andrews and Arnold (voip). The latter
>charge me £1.44 per month excluding any call charges, which gives you an
>indication of the true economic cost of providing such a service.
>
Interesting; presumably that 1.44 - if as you say it's _ex_cluding call
charges - is the "cost" of maintaining the accounting processes that
keep your number active.

Given some mobile networks (admittedly, fewer and fewer) provide PAYG
contracts for nothing (well, you have to make a call every month or
quarter), it seems a tad high. (OK, those could be a loss leader, but
back in the day when mobile started, PAYG was more or less the default,
and I can't see why the economics should have changed in that respect.
Unless OfCom - or some similar body - are now charging to limit the use
of numbers, but if they are, I'd have thought the PAYG mobiles would
also have a no-use monthly charge.)

A&A aren't known for cheapness, of course - quite the opposite (bit like
Rolls Royce: if you have to ask the price, you can't afford them).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"He who will not reason is a bigot;
he who cannot is a fool;
he who dares not is a slave."
- Sir William Drummond

Above all things, use your mind.
Don't be that bigot, fool, or slave.

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <u8roc0$23qk$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 14 Jul 2023 15:07:44,
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
> []
>> Number portability exists for voip. I’ve moved a number that was originally
>> BT to Sipgate (voip) and then to Andrews and Arnold (voip). The latter
>> charge me £1.44 per month excluding any call charges, which gives you an
>> indication of the true economic cost of providing such a service.
>>
> Interesting; presumably that 1.44 - if as you say it's _ex_cluding call
> charges - is the "cost" of maintaining the accounting processes that
> keep your number active.
>
> Given some mobile networks (admittedly, fewer and fewer) provide PAYG
> contracts for nothing (well, you have to make a call every month or
> quarter), it seems a tad high. (OK, those could be a loss leader, but
> back in the day when mobile started, PAYG was more or less the default,
> and I can't see why the economics should have changed in that respect.
> Unless OfCom - or some similar body - are now charging to limit the use
> of numbers, but if they are, I'd have thought the PAYG mobiles would
> also have a no-use monthly charge.)
>
> A&A aren't known for cheapness, of course - quite the opposite (bit like
> Rolls Royce: if you have to ask the price, you can't afford them).

Mobile networks do have a cost to keep your number active - a lot of their
software is licensed on a per user basis. It’s one reason why they have
various methods for getting some money out of you. 1p mobile is a good
example. They started off with no ongoing charge but found it to be
uneconomic. Now you have to top up £10 every 4 months.

When mobiles started PAYG was not the default. It was a hefty monthly fee
plus hefty call charges.

In message <u8te6l$au9t$1@dont-email.me> at Sat, 15 Jul 2023 06:26:29,
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
[]
>Mobile networks do have a cost to keep your number active - a lot of their
>software is licensed on a per user basis. It’s one reason why they have
>various methods for getting some money out of you. 1p mobile is a good
>example. They started off with no ongoing charge but found it to be
>uneconomic. Now you have to top up £10 every 4 months.
[]
There are still no-ongoing-charge SIMs - they have very high per-minute
charges, which is fair enough. (ASDA do one, for example - 15p a minute.
I have one.) I think you have to make a call every month or quarter on
them, but that's more to keep the number active (they reserve the right
to discontinue service if you don't use it, though I think they don't
always do so), rather than cost recovery.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

And on the question of authorship, I subscribe to the view that the plays were
not in fact written by Shakespeare but by someone of the same name.
- Hugh Bonneville (RT 2014/10/11-17)

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <u8te6l$au9t$1@dont-email.me> at Sat, 15 Jul 2023 06:26:29,
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> writes
> []
>> Mobile networks do have a cost to keep your number active - a lot of their
>> software is licensed on a per user basis. It’s one reason why they have
>> various methods for getting some money out of you. 1p mobile is a good
>> example. They started off with no ongoing charge but found it to be
>> uneconomic. Now you have to top up £10 every 4 months.
> []
> There are still no-ongoing-charge SIMs - they have very high per-minute
> charges, which is fair enough. (ASDA do one, for example - 15p a minute.
> I have one.) I think you have to make a call every month or quarter on
> them, but that's more to keep the number active (they reserve the right
> to discontinue service if you don't use it, though I think they don't
> always do so), rather than cost recovery.

I’m not disputing that such sims exist, they make the economics work by
high charges to those that do make calls. But one day ASDA might decide the
whole thing isn’t worth the effort.

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 14:52:04 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> In message <u8gk36$2gduf$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 10 Jul 2023 10:47:17,
> Brian Gaff <brian1gaff@gmail.com> writes
>>Is this not the same logic that assumes everyone has a smart phone and
>>can use it? I despair when I note that tickets can only be bought via
>>eventbrite and shown on the screen of your phone when attending.
>> Somebody needs to force the powers that be to acknowledge there are
>>citizens who do not have smart anythings or the internet.. Or is the
>>whole reason for phasing out land lines via copper a ploy to give
>>everyone broadband whether they want it or not?
>> How broad is your band?
>> Brian
>>
> The word you slipped in - unintentionally, I'm sure - is "give".
>
> *IF* the solution _is_ to actually _give_ everyone broadband - i. e.
> provide it at no more than the line rental charge - then I'd accept it*,
> but I very much doubt either the government or the ISPs have any
> intention of doing away with that revenue stream. I've thought for some
> time that the splitting of the charge into line rental and broadband is
> increasingly arbitrary (and leads to many dishonest marketing
> practices), but without legislation - from a government that knows what
> it's doing, so that's a pipedream - it won't happen.
>
> *Yes, even universal broadband would far from solve everything, but I'd
> withdraw a lot of my objections.

Just need a router with a dozen secure channels and one supplier.

Robin wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> Within 2 years, if a house still has copper, it will only be for
>> broadband, any form of phoneline will be VoIP over the broadband
>> one way or another.
>
> FTAOD that's true even if the copper is coax from Virgin Media.

Ah, I hadn't heard much about Virgin's VoIP plans

On Mon, 10 Jul 2023 13:05:00 +0100, Liz Tuddenham
<liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:

> ... before the politicianscome to their senses and realise that electric
> cars are actually making the environmental prolems worse.

Like bus lanes. The fucking nutters councillors round here are making
24 hour bus lanes when there aren't 24 hour buses. In fact you're lucky to
get buses 10 hours a day to my gaff.
The 2 hours/day ones that were there before were perfectly adequate to
cope with the morning peak.

They're now carving up huge chunks of tarmac to put in these things
so all the other traffic will have to queue much further back and the
buses will get stuck longer in this than they will gain on the bit
they can zoom through.
Fucking nuts councillors have obviously never heard of integration
testing or similar.