Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #87133 > unrolled thread
| Started by | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-05-26 02:21 -0400 |
| Last post | 2026-05-26 17:21 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 199 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 02:21 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 08:46 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-05-26 09:49 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 04:47 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 11:25 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-26 09:53 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 04:38 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 11:35 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-26 22:09 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 16:17 -0700
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-27 00:02 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-27 00:11 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-05-28 10:32 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-27 08:41 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-27 11:04 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 03:31 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-28 09:18 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-28 13:42 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-28 15:01 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 21:34 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 11:07 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-29 12:55 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 12:14 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-29 13:36 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 13:26 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-29 19:36 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 17:24 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-29 19:37 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 19:36 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 22:34 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-30 04:29 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-30 13:09 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-30 23:29 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-05-31 21:45 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:15 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-01 18:53 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-02 01:46 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-02 03:01 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:12 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 10:16 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:09 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 21:26 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:48 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 14:35 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 17:25 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 19:24 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-02 02:58 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-02 11:11 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-02 22:15 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-02 22:32 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 02:33 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:57 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 14:40 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-29 04:30 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-29 01:34 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 06:36 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-31 00:38 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-05-31 05:09 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-31 03:10 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-05-31 07:14 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-01 00:49 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-01 04:57 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 03:20 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 19:45 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 18:30 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 22:27 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 10:49 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 13:16 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 00:00 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 14:43 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:35 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:21 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 18:25 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 21:36 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:06 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:32 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:43 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 13:05 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:14 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:31 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 14:43 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 19:28 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-03 18:00 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:13 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 14:48 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 14:46 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-01 19:00 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-06-02 17:44 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 17:54 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-02 16:57 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 21:02 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:41 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:13 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:47 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:49 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:10 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-02 22:29 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:52 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-03 18:00 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:49 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:56 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-03 18:00 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-29 02:17 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 03:50 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-01 01:07 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:47 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 17:36 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 22:33 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:25 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 02:12 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:03 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:06 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:02 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-03 18:00 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:26 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 17:31 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 22:49 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:37 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-05-30 09:09 +1000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-30 13:17 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-05-31 07:33 +1000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-31 00:14 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-31 12:09 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-01 00:51 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:28 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-31 12:58 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-27 20:51 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 14:02 -0700
Re: Redundancy/Survival not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-05-28 08:54 +1000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-28 05:04 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 03:54 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-05-28 09:15 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:29 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-28 13:45 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-05-29 02:50 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-29 01:17 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 06:48 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-30 04:25 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-30 13:20 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-05-30 14:16 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-05-30 04:00 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 23:41 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-27 14:09 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 03:51 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-28 17:08 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 22:14 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 04:41 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-29 01:53 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 06:32 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 13:19 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 22:52 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:46 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-03 00:27 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 03:26 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 03:03 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:12 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:08 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:33 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 14:45 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 13:08 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 22:55 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-02 10:39 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 13:21 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:57 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 22:39 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-27 14:10 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-05-28 09:05 +1000
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-28 08:19 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 03:52 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-28 09:20 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 20:34 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-05-28 21:07 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 13:40 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-01 19:12 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 10:28 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-02 12:15 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 16:19 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:30 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:29 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-02 16:49 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:18 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-06-02 17:38 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 15:48 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 00:39 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 17:55 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 16:03 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-02 12:22 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 16:36 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:39 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 00:48 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 01:21 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-29 02:08 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 06:41 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 13:23 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 23:00 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-05-26 09:44 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 04:45 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 11:38 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Worst Case" <fritz@spamexpire-202605.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2026-05-26 17:21 +0200
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-01 22:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e681fmxjks.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87334 |
On 2026-06-01 15:08, Rich wrote: > c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> On 5/28/26 13:08, rbowman wrote: >>> On Thu, 28 May 2026 03:51:01 -0400, c186282 wrote: >>> >>>> There's a TV commercial for a firm that can track down all your >>>> service subscriptions. People often have a LOT of them, long >>>> forgotten, >>>> but still bleeding money from their accounts. >>> >>> Some month I'll summon up all my patience and try to cancel my AT&T long >>> distance service. I haven't made a land line long distance call in years. >>> Or they may cancel it for me. it's been on ACH for years but the last >>> three months the payment doesn't seem to have gone through. >> >> I have that, AND a long-dead basic DSL account. >> >> But, I'm not gonna tamper. That would be THE excuse >> to snip my landline. Can tell, they're just LOOKING >> for an excuse ... > > They don't need an excuse. They just need the FCC's permission > (already done) and your local state's telephone regulatory agency's > permission (the process is *likely* underway). Once they have that, > you'll be given an ultimatium. Switch to their newfangled "service X" > by date Y. After date Y your old POTS line will go dead, and if you > have not "switched to newfangled Y" or ported your number out to > elsewhere, you'll also lose "rental ownership" of the phone number. > >> They DID send a letter saying they were not going to >> ADD any more hard-lines anymore, but still SURE they >> are just looking for The Excuse to dump 'em all. > > Again, they don't go looking for an excuse. They sweettalk the > regulators into allowing it, and once the regulators say "ok", they > waste no time making sure there is no option for the regulators to > change their minds later. > >> Can't move my old number to wireless anything - wireless uses >> different xxx-0123 numbers always now. > > Not anymore. You can move any number anywhere now. The old "area" > based exchange idea for both "area codes" and for "exchange codes" > (your xxx- above) has been long gone for years. > > New wireless service might be handing out different xxx- prefixes, but > that's because there's no spare numbers left in your current xxx- > prefix. But the number you have now *can* be moved. > It is just administrative. Here in Spain "landline" (VoIP) uses different numeration than mobile. Mobile may actually be not using VoIP yet. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 10:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10vm8d8$2prmk$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87346 |
On 2026-06-01, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-06-01 15:08, Rich wrote: >> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>> On 5/28/26 13:08, rbowman wrote: >>>> On Thu, 28 May 2026 03:51:01 -0400, c186282 wrote: >>>> >>>>> There's a TV commercial for a firm that can track down all your >>>>> service subscriptions. People often have a LOT of them, long >>>>> forgotten, >>>>> but still bleeding money from their accounts. >>>> >>>> Some month I'll summon up all my patience and try to cancel my AT&T long >>>> distance service. I haven't made a land line long distance call in years. >>>> Or they may cancel it for me. it's been on ACH for years but the last >>>> three months the payment doesn't seem to have gone through. >>> >>> I have that, AND a long-dead basic DSL account. >>> >>> But, I'm not gonna tamper. That would be THE excuse >>> to snip my landline. Can tell, they're just LOOKING >>> for an excuse ... >> >> They don't need an excuse. They just need the FCC's permission >> (already done) and your local state's telephone regulatory agency's >> permission (the process is *likely* underway). Once they have that, >> you'll be given an ultimatium. Switch to their newfangled "service X" >> by date Y. After date Y your old POTS line will go dead, and if you >> have not "switched to newfangled Y" or ported your number out to >> elsewhere, you'll also lose "rental ownership" of the phone number. >> >>> They DID send a letter saying they were not going to >>> ADD any more hard-lines anymore, but still SURE they >>> are just looking for The Excuse to dump 'em all. >> >> Again, they don't go looking for an excuse. They sweettalk the >> regulators into allowing it, and once the regulators say "ok", they >> waste no time making sure there is no option for the regulators to >> change their minds later. >> >>> Can't move my old number to wireless anything - wireless uses >>> different xxx-0123 numbers always now. >> >> Not anymore. You can move any number anywhere now. The old "area" >> based exchange idea for both "area codes" and for "exchange codes" >> (your xxx- above) has been long gone for years. >> >> New wireless service might be handing out different xxx- prefixes, but >> that's because there's no spare numbers left in your current xxx- >> prefix. But the number you have now *can* be moved. >> > > > It is just administrative. Here in Spain "landline" (VoIP) uses > different numeration than mobile. Do you get a landline prefix or a "VoIP" prefix, or are both the same in Spain? Across one of the borders, Portugal has or had a different (3) prefix for VoIP services, while landlines use 2. <https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BAmeros_de_telefone_em_Portugal#Plano_Nacional_de_Numera%C3%A7%C3%A3o> > Mobile may actually be not using VoIP yet. (With GSM, wasn't the "generation" a criterion for that? Was it 4G that started requiring a VoIP-like approach?) -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 13:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vtq2fmxa11.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87362 |
On 2026-06-02 11:39, Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2026-06-01, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> On 2026-06-01 15:08, Rich wrote: >>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>>> On 5/28/26 13:08, rbowman wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 28 May 2026 03:51:01 -0400, c186282 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> There's a TV commercial for a firm that can track down all your >>>>>> service subscriptions. People often have a LOT of them, long >>>>>> forgotten, >>>>>> but still bleeding money from their accounts. >>>>> >>>>> Some month I'll summon up all my patience and try to cancel my AT&T long >>>>> distance service. I haven't made a land line long distance call in years. >>>>> Or they may cancel it for me. it's been on ACH for years but the last >>>>> three months the payment doesn't seem to have gone through. >>>> >>>> I have that, AND a long-dead basic DSL account. >>>> >>>> But, I'm not gonna tamper. That would be THE excuse >>>> to snip my landline. Can tell, they're just LOOKING >>>> for an excuse ... >>> >>> They don't need an excuse. They just need the FCC's permission >>> (already done) and your local state's telephone regulatory agency's >>> permission (the process is *likely* underway). Once they have that, >>> you'll be given an ultimatium. Switch to their newfangled "service X" >>> by date Y. After date Y your old POTS line will go dead, and if you >>> have not "switched to newfangled Y" or ported your number out to >>> elsewhere, you'll also lose "rental ownership" of the phone number. >>> >>>> They DID send a letter saying they were not going to >>>> ADD any more hard-lines anymore, but still SURE they >>>> are just looking for The Excuse to dump 'em all. >>> >>> Again, they don't go looking for an excuse. They sweettalk the >>> regulators into allowing it, and once the regulators say "ok", they >>> waste no time making sure there is no option for the regulators to >>> change their minds later. >>> >>>> Can't move my old number to wireless anything - wireless uses >>>> different xxx-0123 numbers always now. >>> >>> Not anymore. You can move any number anywhere now. The old "area" >>> based exchange idea for both "area codes" and for "exchange codes" >>> (your xxx- above) has been long gone for years. >>> >>> New wireless service might be handing out different xxx- prefixes, but >>> that's because there's no spare numbers left in your current xxx- >>> prefix. But the number you have now *can* be moved. >>> >> >> >> It is just administrative. Here in Spain "landline" (VoIP) uses >> different numeration than mobile. > > Do you get a landline prefix or a "VoIP" prefix, or are both the same in > Spain? A traditional landline number. There is a VoIP system behind it, but the identifiers and the configs are not published. Not accessible except by reverse engineering. It is even possible that a 10.*.*.* network is involved (I'm not sure). > Across one of the borders, Portugal has or had a different (3) > prefix for VoIP services, while landlines use 2. > > <https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BAmeros_de_telefone_em_Portugal#Plano_Nacional_de_Numera%C3%A7%C3%A3o> > >> Mobile may actually be not using VoIP yet. > > (With GSM, wasn't the "generation" a criterion for that? Was it 4G that > started requiring a VoIP-like approach?) I don't know, I'm no longer working in that field :-) -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-03 02:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10vo56p$3b3aj$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87362 |
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 2026-06-01, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> On 2026-06-01 15:08, Rich wrote: >>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>>> On 5/28/26 13:08, rbowman wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 28 May 2026 03:51:01 -0400, c186282 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> There's a TV commercial for a firm that can track down all your >>>>>> service subscriptions. People often have a LOT of them, long >>>>>> forgotten, >>>>>> but still bleeding money from their accounts. >>>>> >>>>> Some month I'll summon up all my patience and try to cancel my AT&T long >>>>> distance service. I haven't made a land line long distance call in years. >>>>> Or they may cancel it for me. it's been on ACH for years but the last >>>>> three months the payment doesn't seem to have gone through. >>>> >>>> I have that, AND a long-dead basic DSL account. >>>> >>>> But, I'm not gonna tamper. That would be THE excuse >>>> to snip my landline. Can tell, they're just LOOKING >>>> for an excuse ... >>> >>> They don't need an excuse. They just need the FCC's permission >>> (already done) and your local state's telephone regulatory agency's >>> permission (the process is *likely* underway). Once they have that, >>> you'll be given an ultimatium. Switch to their newfangled "service X" >>> by date Y. After date Y your old POTS line will go dead, and if you >>> have not "switched to newfangled Y" or ported your number out to >>> elsewhere, you'll also lose "rental ownership" of the phone number. >>> >>>> They DID send a letter saying they were not going to >>>> ADD any more hard-lines anymore, but still SURE they >>>> are just looking for The Excuse to dump 'em all. >>> >>> Again, they don't go looking for an excuse. They sweettalk the >>> regulators into allowing it, and once the regulators say "ok", they >>> waste no time making sure there is no option for the regulators to >>> change their minds later. >>> >>>> Can't move my old number to wireless anything - wireless uses >>>> different xxx-0123 numbers always now. >>> >>> Not anymore. You can move any number anywhere now. The old "area" >>> based exchange idea for both "area codes" and for "exchange codes" >>> (your xxx- above) has been long gone for years. >>> >>> New wireless service might be handing out different xxx- prefixes, but >>> that's because there's no spare numbers left in your current xxx- >>> prefix. But the number you have now *can* be moved. >>> >> >> >> It is just administrative. Here in Spain "landline" (VoIP) uses >> different numeration than mobile. > > Do you get a landline prefix or a "VoIP" prefix, or are both the same in > Spain? Across one of the borders, Portugal has or had a different (3) > prefix for VoIP services, while landlines use 2. > > <https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BAmeros_de_telefone_em_Portugal#Plano_Nacional_de_Numera%C3%A7%C3%A3o> > >> Mobile may actually be not using VoIP yet. > > (With GSM, wasn't the "generation" a criterion for that? Was it 4G that > started requiring a VoIP-like approach?) 4G started the transition to cell phones being /effectively/ VOIP. It is called VoLTE (Voice over LTE). 4G no longer has a dedicated synchronous TDM "phone channel" like 3G wireless had. Voice calls are handled simply as more network data being sent over the LTE data channel. Notably, at least in the US, they pulled the same stunt they previously pulled for long distance. The call's being handled by sending a network data stream over LTE, but was still being charged as if your handset were reserving one of a limited number of TDM slots on the antenna pole your handset is linked to currently. That is until competition compelled all of them to offer 'unlimited minutes to everywhere for one low price'. 5G is purely VOIP (it may not be TCP/IP VOIP the actual protocol, but it is "digitzed voice over a data network") over the 5G LTE network for the voice calls. They just droped the VoLTE label as it was no longer "new fangled" at the 5G stage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-26 22:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <TJycnTERSJjsxIv3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87165 |
On 5/26/26 18:09, Rich wrote: > c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> On 5/26/26 02:46, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> So, it is fibre now. If fibre is not feasible to your location (like >>> isolated places), they they put you on some radio for the same price. >> >> Fiber is STILL a direct-connect tech ... and >> the providers are AGAINST that. Requires HUMAN >> workers. >> >> They want 100% wireless - no matter how shitty. > > In the US, the ulterior motive actually appears to be the fact that > POTS service is regulated (price regulated and availability > requirements regulated) whereas the "new fangled" fiber services are > free of those pesky requirements for requesting price increases or > being required to provide a particular availably (uptime) level. That IS a factor. > They don't mind at all sending a tech. out to drag in fiber, given that > each one moves them from "regulated service" to "unregulated service". Soon the fiber/repeaters will degrade and they'll have fired all the humans who knew how to deal with it. "Comcast" will probably have cable/Fiber for awhile yet, but their price has become extreme. Can't even get that anymore, tiny bushes became huge trees over time and it'd cost me thousands to clear a path for a cable-tv wire now. When my old one - literally on the ground since Covid days - goes, well, dish.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-27 14:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10v6qg9$2ot19$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87170 |
On 27/05/2026 03:39, c186282 wrote: > Soon the fiber/repeaters will degrade and they'll > Â have fired all the humans who knew how to deal > Â with it. Hardly. Fibre does not degrade. Not like copper -- How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think. Adolf Hitler
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-28 09:05 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <6a17789e@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #87195 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 27/05/2026 03:39, c186282 wrote: >> Soon the fiber/repeaters will degrade and they'll >> have fired all the humans who knew how to deal >> with it. > > Hardly. Fibre does not degrade. Not like copper Still here in Australia one person I know with "fibre to the premises" (as opposed to re-using the old copper phone lines for connection from the street to the house) had to have the line fixed within about a year of installation due to a faulty connection that evidently "degraded" somehow over time. Likely a faulty installation, the box they attached to the house wasn't even screwed on very convincingly, but there'll be a lot of that in this contry and probably elsewhere. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-28 08:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10v8qa7$39l9v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87207 |
On 28/05/2026 00:05, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On 27/05/2026 03:39, c186282 wrote: >>> Soon the fiber/repeaters will degrade and they'll >>> have fired all the humans who knew how to deal >>> with it. >> >> Hardly. Fibre does not degrade. Not like copper > > Still here in Australia one person I know with "fibre to the > premises" (as opposed to re-using the old copper phone lines for > connection from the street to the house) had to have the line fixed > within about a year of installation due to a faulty connection that > evidently "degraded" somehow over time. > > Likely a faulty installation, the box they attached to the house > wasn't even screwed on very convincingly, but there'll be a lot of > that in this contry and probably elsewhere. > Nothing in that shows that the fibre degraded. Only a connection -- Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is that they are dead. Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-28 03:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ec6dnYCgEcvmaYr3nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87195 |
On 5/27/26 09:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 27/05/2026 03:39, c186282 wrote: >> Soon the fiber/repeaters will degrade and they'll >> Â Â have fired all the humans who knew how to deal >> Â Â with it. > > Hardly. Fibre does not degrade. Not like copper The fiber doesn't ... but fiber requires splitters/repeaters. THOSE will degrade. HUMANS will be required to replace that stuff. Humans are a pain in the ass and expensive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-28 09:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10v8tsh$3ajmv$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87220 |
On 28/05/2026 08:52, c186282 wrote: > On 5/27/26 09:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 27/05/2026 03:39, c186282 wrote: >>> Soon the fiber/repeaters will degrade and they'll >>> Â Â have fired all the humans who knew how to deal >>> Â Â with it. >> >> Hardly. Fibre does not degrade. Not like copper > > Â The fiber doesn't ... but fiber requires > Â splitters/repeaters. THOSE will degrade. > Â HUMANS will be required to replace that > Â stuff. Humans are a pain in the ass and > Â expensive. > Again,. no, not really. You don send humans under the oceans to fix cables And fibre junctions are where human access is by definition possible And fixing fibre connections is not rocket science -- Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend. "Saki"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-28 20:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <UYicndWFJtyzQoX3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87225 |
On 5/28/26 04:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 28/05/2026 08:52, c186282 wrote: >> On 5/27/26 09:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 27/05/2026 03:39, c186282 wrote: >>>> Soon the fiber/repeaters will degrade and they'll >>>> Â Â have fired all the humans who knew how to deal >>>> Â Â with it. >>> >>> Hardly. Fibre does not degrade. Not like copper >> >> Â Â The fiber doesn't ... but fiber requires >> Â Â splitters/repeaters. THOSE will degrade. >> Â Â HUMANS will be required to replace that >> Â Â stuff. Humans are a pain in the ass and >> Â Â expensive. >> > Again,. no, not really. You don send humans under the oceans to fix cables > And fibre junctions are where human access is by definition possible > And fixing fibre connections is not rocket science Fixing copper is even easier - and it's already there.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-28 21:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10vaorr$3r8c4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87244 |
On 5/28/2026 8:34 PM, c186282 wrote: > On 5/28/26 04:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 28/05/2026 08:52, c186282 wrote: >>> On 5/27/26 09:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> On 27/05/2026 03:39, c186282 wrote: >>>>> Soon the fiber/repeaters will degrade and they'll >>>>> Â Â have fired all the humans who knew how to deal >>>>> Â Â with it. >>>> >>>> Hardly. Fibre does not degrade. Not like copper >>> >>> Â Â The fiber doesn't ... but fiber requires >>> Â Â splitters/repeaters. THOSE will degrade. >>> Â Â HUMANS will be required to replace that >>> Â Â stuff. Humans are a pain in the ass and >>> Â Â expensive. >>> >> Again,. no, not really. You don send humans under the oceans to fix >> cables >> And fibre junctions are where human access is by definition possible >> And fixing fibre connections is not rocket science > > > Â Fixing copper is even easier - and it's already there. It isn't just the fiber itself, but the other active equipment involved. I live in a Verizon metro area, so unfortunately it's fiber and not copper. I still pay for standalone regulated "POTS over fiber" (not the more common unregulated FiOS Digital Voice offering). It works ~mostly the same, i.e. you can make dial-around calls using Feature Group D Equal Access and I have a TDM-based long-distance service, even though my ONT connects via SIP to a new packet switch. In just the past couple years, there have been several impairments to my service that would not have happened with copper. On one occasion, I came home and had no dial tone, and called Verizon up using VoIP through my cable ISP. I made a stink, since the "POTS" line (albeit fiber) is my only way to reach 911 in an emergency. They gave me a service credit, but could not explain why it randomly stopped working and needed a reboot. When is the last time a 5ESS or DMS100 just "stopped providing dial tone" randomly and needed a reboot? Probably never. On another occasion, I called about another unrelated issue and the idiot offshore tech decided to reboot my ONT *without my consent*, and unnecessarily given I wasn't calling about a line-related issue at all. Well, I let *him* have it and also demanded and got another service credit. But another loss of service (however temporary) that would be impossible on copper. Yes, copper is not perfect, but in actual reality, copper works much more of the time than fiber. There are fewer things that can go wrong. And even though I have a backup battery unit for my service, it's only good for 8 hours. What happens then? I would take a line with a little hum or static over no line at all, especially when most needed. This has all come to a head recently in California - the California regulator has so far protected consumers and stood up to AT&T, unlike other states, and now AT&T has sued California for this and asked the FCC to preempt California's protections - see https://savelandlines.org/ for the high-level details. While I live in an urban area and probably will be fine in a power outage unless I hurt myself, many Californias will be left for dead if they lose their copper POTS line, as it's often the only reliable way to call for help in many areas, esp. with prolonged power outages being common. But the FCC has long ago decided that helping industry increase its already massive profits is now more important than its actual job, protecting the people from industry. P.S. I empathize with the OP here... while I still have cable Internet for the time being (not interested in Verizon's stupid and unnecessary fiber that I never asked for or wanted), I've been questioning why I even have that. Between JavaScript that doesn't work in my browsers, user agent blocking, and just plain bloated and unusable sites, hardly anything on the WWW even works anymore (or is even worth accessing if it still does). Email and Usenet work fine on slow connections and asynchronously. I found a new dial-up ISP[1] in the last month that has good customer service and is still reselling dial-up, and I'm planning to cancel my cable and switch to dial-up. Will save a few bucks and cut some BS out of my life. (And yes, it works just fine on my "POTS over fiber", though for some reason I can only negotiate 33.6k. It's rock solid and will stay up with no drops, though my fellow copper dial-up users tell me they can get speeds in the 40s and 50s, so something about the fiber arrangement seems to be interfering with V.90/V.92 negotiation.) [1] https://www.va.net/dialup
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-01 13:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10vk256$27ab8$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87245 |
InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote: > though for some reason I can only negotiate 33.6k. 33.6 is as high as you can negioate using digital to audio and audio to digital signal transmission (i.e., standard "modem" working) due to the underlying digitizing rate for all phone calls by the carriers. > so something about the fiber arrangement seems to be interfering with > V.90/V.92 negotiation.) Obtaining speeds higher than 33.6 requires: 1) copper between the modem and the dmarc in the exchange 2) the dmark in the switch being one that can have the analog to digital converter at the end of the copper turned off. The higher speeds work by both ends driving the copper as if it were a digital baseband network link (i.e., somewhat akin to driving ethernet signaling over the line). But, with any analog to digital converters in between mean you can't get better than 33.6. And all the "fiber to your home, with a little box that drives your in house copper as if it were still connected to POTS" means there is a small analog to digital converter in the way (and no one decided to offer the ability to switch it off and drive the copper as digital baseband).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-01 19:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10vl3kr$2ii0i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87337 |
On 6/1/2026 9:40 AM, Rich wrote: > InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote: >> though for some reason I can only negotiate 33.6k. > > 33.6 is as high as you can negioate using digital to audio and audio to > digital signal transmission (i.e., standard "modem" working) due to the > underlying digitizing rate for all phone calls by the carriers. > >> so something about the fiber arrangement seems to be interfering with >> V.90/V.92 negotiation.) > > Obtaining speeds higher than 33.6 requires: > 1) copper between the modem and the dmarc in the exchange > 2) the dmark in the switch being one that can have the analog to > digital converter at the end of the copper turned off. > > The higher speeds work by both ends driving the copper as if it were a > digital baseband network link (i.e., somewhat akin to driving ethernet > signaling over the line). > > But, with any analog to digital converters in between mean you can't > get better than 33.6. And all the "fiber to your home, with a little > box that drives your in house copper as if it were still connected to > POTS" means there is a small analog to digital converter in the way > (and no one decided to offer the ability to switch it off and drive the > copper as digital baseband). Yes, I'm aware of the 33.6 ceiling with conversions. I don't think I mentioned it before, but I can get 36000 (not 33600) when calling certain modems. I've gotten it a few times when calling the dial-up ISP here in the US (there is really only one, no matter which reseller you use), but usually just 33600. That demonstrates I can get speeds > 33.6k, but usually the negotiation fails (I can hear it too, it's not happy trying to negotiate V.90/V.92). My point was that copper POTS customers can get speeds in the 40s/50s calling the same service, no problem at all, but I'm not able to do that with my service being delivered over fiber. Dial-up Internet speeds are actually *hampered* by fiber... how ironic is that? So from my (consumer) perspective, fiber is a loser. It's inferior quality and connectivity and it doesn't work in a power outage. There's already coax in my area for CATV so the fiber was redundant to begin with for broadband. They crippled our phone service in favor of another expensive[1] and unregulated service... but it's great for the telco! Now the burden - and cost - of powering phone service is on the consumer. The only scenario in which fiber wins in my book would be where your copper line is fed out of a SLC-96 that doesn't have a reliable power supply in emergencies, in which case if you happen to have enough backup power yourself, fiber would be better since it's passive (GPON). [1] Oh, and even though my service is arguably inferior to copper, I don't pay any less than copper customers; still all the high taxes/fees associated with regulated service (which I have intentionally). So it's not copper that's expensive per se, it's regulated phone service regardless of technology.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 10:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <9rg2fmxp12.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87350 |
On 2026-06-02 01:12, InterLinked wrote: > On 6/1/2026 9:40 AM, Rich wrote: >> InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote: >>> though for some reason I can only negotiate 33.6k. >> >> 33.6 is as high as you can negioate using digital to audio and audio to >> digital signal transmission (i.e., standard "modem" working) due to the >> underlying digitizing rate for all phone calls by the carriers. > > >>> so something about the fiber arrangement seems to be interfering with >>> V.90/V.92 negotiation.) >> >> Obtaining speeds higher than 33.6 requires: >> 1) copper between the modem and the dmarc in the exchange >> 2) the dmark in the switch being one that can have the analog to >> digital converter at the end of the copper turned off. >> >> The higher speeds work by both ends driving the copper as if it were a >> digital baseband network link (i.e., somewhat akin to driving ethernet >> signaling over the line). >> >> But, with any analog to digital converters in between mean you can't >> get better than 33.6. And all the "fiber to your home, with a little >> box that drives your in house copper as if it were still connected to >> POTS" means there is a small analog to digital converter in the way >> (and no one decided to offer the ability to switch it off and drive the >> copper as digital baseband). > > Yes, I'm aware of the 33.6 ceiling with conversions. > > I don't think I mentioned it before, but I can get 36000 (not 33600) > when calling certain modems. I've gotten it a few times when calling the > dial-up ISP here in the US (there is really only one, no matter which > reseller you use), but usually just 33600. > > That demonstrates I can get speeds > 33.6k, but usually the negotiation > fails (I can hear it too, it's not happy trying to negotiate V.90/V.92). > > My point was that copper POTS customers can get speeds in the 40s/50s > calling the same service, no problem at all, but I'm not able to do that > with my service being delivered over fiber. Dial-up Internet speeds are > actually *hampered* by fiber... how ironic is that? Yes. The signal was digitized at your exchange, then transmitted to the remote exchange. which had a bank of signal processors that would process the digital signal instead of a modem, and get you that V90. I worked for a telco that did precisely this (using the 5ESSS and the Lucent MAX TNT) around year 2000. With fibre and VoIP you have a problem: you are probably using a codec. Maybe a lossy one. > So from my (consumer) perspective, fiber is a loser. It's inferior > quality and connectivity and it doesn't work in a power outage. There's > already coax in my area for CATV so the fiber was redundant to begin > with for broadband. They crippled our phone service in favor of another > expensive[1] and unregulated service... but it's great for the telco! > Now the burden - and cost - of powering phone service is on the consumer. Well, if you want to use dial up modem, you are using the wrong technology. > > The only scenario in which fiber wins in my book would be where your > copper line is fed out of a SLC-96 that doesn't have a reliable power > supply in emergencies, in which case if you happen to have enough backup > power yourself, fiber would be better since it's passive (GPON). > > [1] Oh, and even though my service is arguably inferior to copper, I > don't pay any less than copper customers; still all the high taxes/fees > associated with regulated service (which I have intentionally). So it's > not copper that's expensive per se, it's regulated phone service > regardless of technology. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 12:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10vmvit$325bn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87361 |
On 6/2/2026 4:28 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-06-02 01:12, InterLinked wrote: >> On 6/1/2026 9:40 AM, Rich wrote: >>> InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote: >>>> though for some reason I can only negotiate 33.6k. >>> >>> 33.6 is as high as you can negioate using digital to audio and audio to >>> digital signal transmission (i.e., standard "modem" working) due to the >>> underlying digitizing rate for all phone calls by the carriers. >>  > >>>> so something about the fiber arrangement seems to be interfering with >>>> V.90/V.92 negotiation.) >>> >>> Obtaining speeds higher than 33.6 requires: >>> 1) copper between the modem and the dmarc in the exchange >>> 2) the dmark in the switch being one that can have the analog to >>> digital converter at the end of the copper turned off. >>> >>> The higher speeds work by both ends driving the copper as if it were a >>> digital baseband network link (i.e., somewhat akin to driving ethernet >>> signaling over the line). >>> >>> But, with any analog to digital converters in between mean you can't >>> get better than 33.6. And all the "fiber to your home, with a little >>> box that drives your in house copper as if it were still connected to >>> POTS" means there is a small analog to digital converter in the way >>> (and no one decided to offer the ability to switch it off and drive the >>> copper as digital baseband). >> >> Yes, I'm aware of the 33.6 ceiling with conversions. >> >> I don't think I mentioned it before, but I can get 36000 (not 33600) >> when calling certain modems. I've gotten it a few times when calling >> the dial-up ISP here in the US (there is really only one, no matter >> which reseller you use), but usually just 33600. >> >> That demonstrates I can get speeds > 33.6k, but usually the >> negotiation fails (I can hear it too, it's not happy trying to >> negotiate V.90/V.92). >> >> My point was that copper POTS customers can get speeds in the 40s/50s >> calling the same service, no problem at all, but I'm not able to do >> that with my service being delivered over fiber. Dial-up Internet >> speeds are actually *hampered* by fiber... how ironic is that? > > Yes. The signal was digitized at your exchange, then transmitted to the > remote exchange. which had a bank of signal processors that would > process the digital signal instead of a modem, and get you that V90. > > I worked for a telco that did precisely this (using the 5ESSS and the > Lucent MAX TNT) around year 2000. > > With fibre and VoIP you have a problem: you are probably using a codec. > Maybe a lossy one. No, it's G.711 ulaw, as it should be, same as TDM. I can dial up at 33.6k and it will stay up for hours. Quality of the connection itself is not the issue. I think there is some "audio" part of the V.92 handshake that is getting tripped up by the ONT or something like that. >> So from my (consumer) perspective, fiber is a loser. It's inferior >> quality and connectivity and it doesn't work in a power outage. >> There's already coax in my area for CATV so the fiber was redundant to >> begin with for broadband. They crippled our phone service in favor of >> another expensive[1] and unregulated service... but it's great for the >> telco! Now the burden - and cost - of powering phone service is on the >> consumer. > > Well, if you want to use dial up modem, you are using the wrong technology. I don't have a choice, there's no copper here, I am forced to use fiber.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 16:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2237a70cbaafcb587eb9@dev.null> |
| In reply to | #87372 |
>On Tue, 2 Jun 2026 12:15:25 -0400, InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote: >On 6/2/2026 4:28 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2026-06-02 01:12, InterLinked wrote: >>> On 6/1/2026 9:40 AM, Rich wrote: >>>> InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote: >>>>> though for some reason I can only negotiate 33.6k. >>>> >>>> 33.6 is as high as you can negioate using digital to audio and audio to >>>> digital signal transmission (i.e., standard "modem" working) due to the >>>> underlying digitizing rate for all phone calls by the carriers. >>>  > >>>>> so something about the fiber arrangement seems to be interfering with >>>>> V.90/V.92 negotiation.) >>>> >>>> Obtaining speeds higher than 33.6 requires: >>>> 1) copper between the modem and the dmarc in the exchange >>>> 2) the dmark in the switch being one that can have the analog to >>>> digital converter at the end of the copper turned off. >>>> >>>> The higher speeds work by both ends driving the copper as if it were a >>>> digital baseband network link (i.e., somewhat akin to driving ethernet >>>> signaling over the line). >>>> >>>> But, with any analog to digital converters in between mean you can't >>>> get better than 33.6. And all the "fiber to your home, with a little >>>> box that drives your in house copper as if it were still connected to >>>> POTS" means there is a small analog to digital converter in the way >>>> (and no one decided to offer the ability to switch it off and drive the >>>> copper as digital baseband). >>> >>> Yes, I'm aware of the 33.6 ceiling with conversions. >>> >>> I don't think I mentioned it before, but I can get 36000 (not 33600) >>> when calling certain modems. I've gotten it a few times when calling >>> the dial-up ISP here in the US (there is really only one, no matter >>> which reseller you use), but usually just 33600. >>> >>> That demonstrates I can get speeds > 33.6k, but usually the >>> negotiation fails (I can hear it too, it's not happy trying to >>> negotiate V.90/V.92). >>> >>> My point was that copper POTS customers can get speeds in the 40s/50s >>> calling the same service, no problem at all, but I'm not able to do >>> that with my service being delivered over fiber. Dial-up Internet >>> speeds are actually *hampered* by fiber... how ironic is that? >> >> Yes. The signal was digitized at your exchange, then transmitted to the >> remote exchange. which had a bank of signal processors that would >> process the digital signal instead of a modem, and get you that V90. >> >> I worked for a telco that did precisely this (using the 5ESSS and the >> Lucent MAX TNT) around year 2000. >> >> With fibre and VoIP you have a problem: you are probably using a codec. >> Maybe a lossy one. > >No, it's G.711 ulaw, as it should be, same as TDM. > >I can dial up at 33.6k and it will stay up for hours. Quality of the >connection itself is not the issue. I think there is some "audio" part >of the V.92 handshake that is getting tripped up by the ONT or something >like that. > >>> So from my (consumer) perspective, fiber is a loser. It's inferior >>> quality and connectivity and it doesn't work in a power outage. >>> There's already coax in my area for CATV so the fiber was redundant to >>> begin with for broadband. They crippled our phone service in favor of >>> another expensive[1] and unregulated service... but it's great for the >>> telco! Now the burden - and cost - of powering phone service is on the >>> consumer. >> >> Well, if you want to use dial up modem, you are using the wrong technology. > >I don't have a choice, there's no copper here, I am forced to use fiber. A practical thing to check is whether the modem is repeatedly trying the PCM part of V.90/V.92 and then falling back. On a lot of modems the CONNECT banner alone is not enough; the extended result/log will show the final modulation and sometimes the reason for the retrain/fallback. If you only need the link to be boring and reliable, I would try an init string that disables V.90/V.92 and forces V.34. That avoids the PCM negotiation entirely and turns the problem into ordinary analog modem over G.711. You may lose the occasional 36000 connect, but you also avoid the failed negotiation dance. If you want to chase the higher rate, look for anything in the ONT/ATA path that is meant to "help" voice: echo cancellation, VAD/silence suppression, comfort noise, gain control, fax/modem detection, T.38-ish switching, or impedance/level settings. G.711 is necessary, but it is not always sufficient if the access box is still doing voice processing around it. -- TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> "I survived the great rm -rf / rehearsal and all I got was this .signature."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 18:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <d2d3fmxbht.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87372 |
On 2026-06-02 18:15, InterLinked wrote: > On 6/2/2026 4:28 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2026-06-02 01:12, InterLinked wrote: >>> On 6/1/2026 9:40 AM, Rich wrote: >>>> InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote: >>>>> though for some reason I can only negotiate 33.6k. >>>> >>>> 33.6 is as high as you can negioate using digital to audio and audio to >>>> digital signal transmission (i.e., standard "modem" working) due to the >>>> underlying digitizing rate for all phone calls by the carriers. >>>  > >>>>> so something about the fiber arrangement seems to be interfering with >>>>> V.90/V.92 negotiation.) >>>> >>>> Obtaining speeds higher than 33.6 requires: >>>> 1) copper between the modem and the dmarc in the exchange >>>> 2) the dmark in the switch being one that can have the analog to >>>> digital converter at the end of the copper turned off. >>>> >>>> The higher speeds work by both ends driving the copper as if it were a >>>> digital baseband network link (i.e., somewhat akin to driving ethernet >>>> signaling over the line). >>>> >>>> But, with any analog to digital converters in between mean you can't >>>> get better than 33.6. And all the "fiber to your home, with a little >>>> box that drives your in house copper as if it were still connected to >>>> POTS" means there is a small analog to digital converter in the way >>>> (and no one decided to offer the ability to switch it off and drive the >>>> copper as digital baseband). >>> >>> Yes, I'm aware of the 33.6 ceiling with conversions. >>> >>> I don't think I mentioned it before, but I can get 36000 (not 33600) >>> when calling certain modems. I've gotten it a few times when calling >>> the dial-up ISP here in the US (there is really only one, no matter >>> which reseller you use), but usually just 33600. >>> >>> That demonstrates I can get speeds > 33.6k, but usually the >>> negotiation fails (I can hear it too, it's not happy trying to >>> negotiate V.90/V.92). >>> >>> My point was that copper POTS customers can get speeds in the 40s/50s >>> calling the same service, no problem at all, but I'm not able to do >>> that with my service being delivered over fiber. Dial-up Internet >>> speeds are actually *hampered* by fiber... how ironic is that? >> >> Yes. The signal was digitized at your exchange, then transmitted to >> the remote exchange. which had a bank of signal processors that would >> process the digital signal instead of a modem, and get you that V90. >> >> I worked for a telco that did precisely this (using the 5ESSS and the >> Lucent MAX TNT) around year 2000. >> >> With fibre and VoIP you have a problem: you are probably using a >> codec. Maybe a lossy one. > > No, it's G.711 ulaw, as it should be, same as TDM. Then you have another problem that I forgot: timing. In traditional phone system, circuit switched, the timing was guaranteed and exact. With VoIP, the timing when each package arrive varies. The receiver would have to store and later rebuild the sequence with the exact timing. And I don't know what the return route timings would do to this, would not be synced. > > I can dial up at 33.6k and it will stay up for hours. Quality of the > connection itself is not the issue. I think there is some "audio" part > of the V.92 handshake that is getting tripped up by the ONT or something > like that. > >>> So from my (consumer) perspective, fiber is a loser. It's inferior >>> quality and connectivity and it doesn't work in a power outage. >>> There's already coax in my area for CATV so the fiber was redundant >>> to begin with for broadband. They crippled our phone service in favor >>> of another expensive[1] and unregulated service... but it's great for >>> the telco! Now the burden - and cost - of powering phone service is >>> on the consumer. >> >> Well, if you want to use dial up modem, you are using the wrong >> technology. > > I don't have a choice, there's no copper here, I am forced to use fiber. If you have fibre, you should already have a data connection. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 18:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10vn3u5$33fsr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87375 |
On 02/06/2026 17:30, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> I don't have a choice, there's no copper here, I am forced to use fiber. > > If you have fibre, you should already have a data connection. Ah, That socialist/fascist 'should' He patently doesn't have it. Live with it. -- Karl Marx said religion is the opium of the people. But Marxism is the crack cocaine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 16:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10vnflg$3733e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87375 |
On 6/2/2026 12:30 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > If you have fibre, you should already have a data connection. Nope. I only get phone service from Verizon. Not interested in their overpriced Internet service that I didn't ask for. Ostensibly, I would also have to get unregulated FiOS Digital Voice and lose my regulated service. I care about the phone service, I do not care much about the Internet service. If they still had copper, I would probably have the POTS + DSL bundle, but since they replaced it with fiber, they've lost me as an Internet customer. Besides, there is also cable Internet in this area, which is much cheaper, about $22/month amortized if you use the Seasonal Plan. No reason I'd want fiber Internet which costs more than double that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web