Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #87133 > unrolled thread

Redundancy/Survival

Started byc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
First post2026-05-26 02:21 -0400
Last post2026-05-26 17:21 +0200
Articles 20 on this page of 199 — 16 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc


Contents

  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 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10  Next page →


#87426

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-06-03 11:56 +0100
Message-ID<10vp18e$3igml$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to#87397
The ultimate solution is of course a house wired for DC power fed to USB 
style  outlets with a big $10,000 battery, in addition to normal mains.

You simply feed your LV kit off that and Robert is a relative.

Then when renewable energy takes your country's grid down you can still 
complain to politicians

-- 
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as 
foolish, and by the rulers as useful.

(Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#87453

FromCharlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date2026-06-03 18:00 +0000
Message-ID<NYZTR.139004$Grwb.24822@fx13.iad>
In reply to#87426
On 2026-06-03, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> The ultimate solution is of course a house wired for DC power fed to USB 
> style  outlets with a big $10,000 battery, in addition to normal mains.
>
> You simply feed your LV kit off that and Robert is a relative.
>
> Then when renewable energy takes your country's grid down you can still 
> complain to politicians

And they can still ignore you.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Growth for the sake of
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  growth is the ideology
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  of the cancer cell.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Edward Abbey

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#87265

Fromc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
Date2026-05-29 02:17 -0400
Message-ID<97OcnWwzhIQAsoT3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#87255
Argue crap all you want - the providers are
generally REQUIRED to keep the POTS running
and I support that.

Note the theme here - "Redundancy".

Keep EVERYTHING that worked. Add on new stuff
all you want, but .....

Use the Laws. Hire class-action lawyers if needed
to kick ass.

Oh, and even TELEGRAPH service should be preserved
over a few copper lines. Slow, but WORKED and was
very robust. First comm network that could use
pre-Tube/Transistor amplifiers ... just relays.
Edison figured out how to record the traffic
even as a youth.

On the whole, "new" is MUCH more technically
complicated at every level. That complication
means MANY more ways for it to FAIL.

OK ... believable ... North Korea sets off
several EMP bombs high over the USA. ALL the
'complicated' tech immediately DIES for a
LONG time.

So HOW do you call an ambulance ? Your bank ?

You AREN'T ... unless we've maintained some
lower-tech REDUNDANCY.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#87318

FromRich <rich@example.invalid>
Date2026-06-01 03:50 +0000
Message-ID<10vivi4$1us3j$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#87265
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> Argue crap all you want - the providers are
> generally REQUIRED to keep the POTS running
> and I support that.

And there you are slowly beginning to maybe see why POTS service was 
mostly "always working".  The "providers are generally required" part 
is why.

> OK ... believable ... North Korea sets off
> several EMP bombs high over the USA. ALL the
> 'complicated' tech immediately DIES for a
> LONG time.

Sadly, I have bad news for you.  Your wonderful copper POTS line that 
begins at the side of your house, and travels however far from pole to 
pole to reach you local telephone switch, well, guess what it connects 
to at that switch now in 2026?

The old electromechanical step-by-step switches, or electromechanical 
crossbar switches?  Nope.  Those were, mostly, long gone by the early 
70's.

It connects to...... a modern digitizer that digitizes the signals on 
the line, and the entire rest of the switch, in 2026, is a fancy 
computer system (usually running Erlang) that routes digital bits and 
bytes around.

Guess what happens to those digital computer switches should that EMP 
be exploded?

While you /might/ have 48v of power on the line, for a while (until the 
diesel generators run out of fuel) you won't have any communications, 
because *everything* after your copper wires terminate at the local 
switch is, and has been since the early 70's, essentially VOIP service 
now (not literally VOIP, but digital networking and/or digital 
computerized circuit switching (i.e.  ATM)).


[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#87324

Fromc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
Date2026-06-01 01:07 -0400
Message-ID<bIScnQGbw7sQjoD3nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#87318
On 5/31/26 23:50, Rich wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>> Argue crap all you want - the providers are
>> generally REQUIRED to keep the POTS running
>> and I support that.
> 
> And there you are slowly beginning to maybe see why POTS service was
> mostly "always working".  The "providers are generally required" part
> is why.
> 
>> OK ... believable ... North Korea sets off
>> several EMP bombs high over the USA. ALL the
>> 'complicated' tech immediately DIES for a
>> LONG time.
> 
> Sadly, I have bad news for you.  Your wonderful copper POTS line that
> begins at the side of your house, and travels however far from pole to
> pole to reach you local telephone switch, well, guess what it connects
> to at that switch now in 2026?
> 
> The old electromechanical step-by-step switches, or electromechanical
> crossbar switches?  Nope.  Those were, mostly, long gone by the early
> 70's.

   Saw 'em in action, late 60s. Neat !

> It connects to...... a modern digitizer that digitizes the signals on
> the line, and the entire rest of the switch, in 2026, is a fancy
> computer system (usually running Erlang) that routes digital bits and
> bytes around.
> 
> Guess what happens to those digital computer switches should that EMP
> be exploded?
> 
> While you /might/ have 48v of power on the line, for a while (until the
> diesel generators run out of fuel) you won't have any communications,
> because *everything* after your copper wires terminate at the local
> switch is, and has been since the early 70's, essentially VOIP service
> now (not literally VOIP, but digital networking and/or digital
> computerized circuit switching (i.e.  ATM)).

   Well, if the digital stuff fries they can STILL
   manually connect at least a sub-portion of the
   copper.

   Most tech fried ... hey ... telegraphy works  :-)
   Simple relay-based line amps. Worked in 1850 and
   can work now over remaining POTS lines. Find a
   neighborhood 'telegraph guy'.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#87330

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2026-06-01 12:47 +0200
Message-ID<ni40fmxe5o.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#87324
On 2026-06-01 07:07, c186282 wrote:
> On 5/31/26 23:50, Rich wrote:
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>> Argue crap all you want - the providers are
>>> generally REQUIRED to keep the POTS running
>>> and I support that.
>>
>> And there you are slowly beginning to maybe see why POTS service was
>> mostly "always working".  The "providers are generally required" part
>> is why.
>>
>>> OK ... believable ... North Korea sets off
>>> several EMP bombs high over the USA. ALL the
>>> 'complicated' tech immediately DIES for a
>>> LONG time.
>>
>> Sadly, I have bad news for you.  Your wonderful copper POTS line that
>> begins at the side of your house, and travels however far from pole to
>> pole to reach you local telephone switch, well, guess what it connects
>> to at that switch now in 2026?
>>
>> The old electromechanical step-by-step switches, or electromechanical
>> crossbar switches?  Nope.  Those were, mostly, long gone by the early
>> 70's.
> 
>    Saw 'em in action, late 60s. Neat !
> 
>> It connects to...... a modern digitizer that digitizes the signals on
>> the line, and the entire rest of the switch, in 2026, is a fancy
>> computer system (usually running Erlang) that routes digital bits and
>> bytes around.
>>
>> Guess what happens to those digital computer switches should that EMP
>> be exploded?
>>
>> While you /might/ have 48v of power on the line, for a while (until the
>> diesel generators run out of fuel) you won't have any communications,
>> because *everything* after your copper wires terminate at the local
>> switch is, and has been since the early 70's, essentially VOIP service
>> now (not literally VOIP, but digital networking and/or digital
>> computerized circuit switching (i.e.  ATM)).
> 
>    Well, if the digital stuff fries they can STILL
>    manually connect at least a sub-portion of the
>    copper.

Manually? You need an expert to go in the exchange and rewire the cables 
to connect two phones permanently. Maybe, because the batteries are the 
wrong voltage. Certainly no dialing.

> 
>    Most tech fried ... hey ... telegraphy works  :-)
>    Simple relay-based line amps. Worked in 1850 and
>    can work now over remaining POTS lines. Find a
>    neighborhood 'telegraph guy'.
> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#87339

FromRich <rich@example.invalid>
Date2026-06-01 17:36 +0000
Message-ID<10vkfub$2ci6m$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#87330
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2026-06-01 07:07, c186282 wrote:
>> On 5/31/26 23:50, Rich wrote:
>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>> Argue crap all you want - the providers are
>>>> generally REQUIRED to keep the POTS running
>>>> and I support that.
>>>
>>> And there you are slowly beginning to maybe see why POTS service was
>>> mostly "always working".  The "providers are generally required" part
>>> is why.
>>>
>>>> OK ... believable ... North Korea sets off
>>>> several EMP bombs high over the USA. ALL the
>>>> 'complicated' tech immediately DIES for a
>>>> LONG time.
>>>
>>> Sadly, I have bad news for you.  Your wonderful copper POTS line that
>>> begins at the side of your house, and travels however far from pole to
>>> pole to reach you local telephone switch, well, guess what it connects
>>> to at that switch now in 2026?
>>>
>>> The old electromechanical step-by-step switches, or electromechanical
>>> crossbar switches?  Nope.  Those were, mostly, long gone by the early
>>> 70's.
>> 
>>    Saw 'em in action, late 60s. Neat !
>> 
>>> It connects to...... a modern digitizer that digitizes the signals on
>>> the line, and the entire rest of the switch, in 2026, is a fancy
>>> computer system (usually running Erlang) that routes digital bits and
>>> bytes around.
>>>
>>> Guess what happens to those digital computer switches should that EMP
>>> be exploded?
>>>
>>> While you /might/ have 48v of power on the line, for a while (until the
>>> diesel generators run out of fuel) you won't have any communications,
>>> because *everything* after your copper wires terminate at the local
>>> switch is, and has been since the early 70's, essentially VOIP service
>>> now (not literally VOIP, but digital networking and/or digital
>>> computerized circuit switching (i.e.  ATM)).
>> 
>>    Well, if the digital stuff fries they can STILL
>>    manually connect at least a sub-portion of the
>>    copper.
> 
> Manually? You need an expert to go in the exchange and rewire the cables 
> to connect two phones permanently. Maybe, because the batteries are the 
> wrong voltage. Certainly no dialing.

I've not even pointed out to him yet that in most of those "bundles" of 
4000 pairs, that there's only about 8 or 10 different colors (certianly 
not 4000 colors).  So "working out" which red/black, from the 10,000 
red/black pairs that terminate at the switch, connect to "joe's pizza" 
is a non-trivial job for the non-expert.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#87343

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2026-06-01 22:33 +0200
Message-ID<9u61fmxgao.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#87339
On 2026-06-01 19:36, Rich wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2026-06-01 07:07, c186282 wrote:
>>> On 5/31/26 23:50, Rich wrote:
>>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>>> Argue crap all you want - the providers are
>>>>> generally REQUIRED to keep the POTS running
>>>>> and I support that.
>>>>
>>>> And there you are slowly beginning to maybe see why POTS service was
>>>> mostly "always working".  The "providers are generally required" part
>>>> is why.
>>>>
>>>>> OK ... believable ... North Korea sets off
>>>>> several EMP bombs high over the USA. ALL the
>>>>> 'complicated' tech immediately DIES for a
>>>>> LONG time.
>>>>
>>>> Sadly, I have bad news for you.  Your wonderful copper POTS line that
>>>> begins at the side of your house, and travels however far from pole to
>>>> pole to reach you local telephone switch, well, guess what it connects
>>>> to at that switch now in 2026?
>>>>
>>>> The old electromechanical step-by-step switches, or electromechanical
>>>> crossbar switches?  Nope.  Those were, mostly, long gone by the early
>>>> 70's.
>>>
>>>     Saw 'em in action, late 60s. Neat !
>>>
>>>> It connects to...... a modern digitizer that digitizes the signals on
>>>> the line, and the entire rest of the switch, in 2026, is a fancy
>>>> computer system (usually running Erlang) that routes digital bits and
>>>> bytes around.
>>>>
>>>> Guess what happens to those digital computer switches should that EMP
>>>> be exploded?
>>>>
>>>> While you /might/ have 48v of power on the line, for a while (until the
>>>> diesel generators run out of fuel) you won't have any communications,
>>>> because *everything* after your copper wires terminate at the local
>>>> switch is, and has been since the early 70's, essentially VOIP service
>>>> now (not literally VOIP, but digital networking and/or digital
>>>> computerized circuit switching (i.e.  ATM)).
>>>
>>>     Well, if the digital stuff fries they can STILL
>>>     manually connect at least a sub-portion of the
>>>     copper.
>>
>> Manually? You need an expert to go in the exchange and rewire the cables
>> to connect two phones permanently. Maybe, because the batteries are the
>> wrong voltage. Certainly no dialing.
> 
> I've not even pointed out to him yet that in most of those "bundles" of
> 4000 pairs, that there's only about 8 or 10 different colors (certianly
> not 4000 colors).  So "working out" which red/black, from the 10,000
> red/black pairs that terminate at the switch, connect to "joe's pizza"
> is a non-trivial job for the non-expert.

Heh, absolutely.

Although you can find the cable at the... I don't know the English name, 
a rack of wire wrapping pins. 4000 at one side, connecting to 4000 at 
the other side which go to the actual switch. These are labelled, but 
you need to know the system. I have not wired these, so here I have to 
guess, but the phone number is not written here. Rather wire number of 
the bundle on the one side, and equipment number on the other side. You 
need a table to find out which is which, possibly computerized, possibly 
printed and stored in large binders.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#87400

FromRich <rich@example.invalid>
Date2026-06-03 02:25 +0000
Message-ID<10vo3b2$3b3aj$4@dont-email.me>
In reply to#87343
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2026-06-01 19:36, Rich wrote:
>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2026-06-01 07:07, c186282 wrote:
>>>> On 5/31/26 23:50, Rich wrote:
>>>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Argue crap all you want - the providers are
>>>>>> generally REQUIRED to keep the POTS running
>>>>>> and I support that.
>>>>>
>>>>> And there you are slowly beginning to maybe see why POTS service was
>>>>> mostly "always working".  The "providers are generally required" part
>>>>> is why.
>>>>>
>>>>>> OK ... believable ... North Korea sets off
>>>>>> several EMP bombs high over the USA. ALL the
>>>>>> 'complicated' tech immediately DIES for a
>>>>>> LONG time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sadly, I have bad news for you.  Your wonderful copper POTS line that
>>>>> begins at the side of your house, and travels however far from pole to
>>>>> pole to reach you local telephone switch, well, guess what it connects
>>>>> to at that switch now in 2026?
>>>>>
>>>>> The old electromechanical step-by-step switches, or electromechanical
>>>>> crossbar switches?  Nope.  Those were, mostly, long gone by the early
>>>>> 70's.
>>>>
>>>>     Saw 'em in action, late 60s. Neat !
>>>>
>>>>> It connects to...... a modern digitizer that digitizes the signals on
>>>>> the line, and the entire rest of the switch, in 2026, is a fancy
>>>>> computer system (usually running Erlang) that routes digital bits and
>>>>> bytes around.
>>>>>
>>>>> Guess what happens to those digital computer switches should that EMP
>>>>> be exploded?
>>>>>
>>>>> While you /might/ have 48v of power on the line, for a while (until the
>>>>> diesel generators run out of fuel) you won't have any communications,
>>>>> because *everything* after your copper wires terminate at the local
>>>>> switch is, and has been since the early 70's, essentially VOIP service
>>>>> now (not literally VOIP, but digital networking and/or digital
>>>>> computerized circuit switching (i.e.  ATM)).
>>>>
>>>>     Well, if the digital stuff fries they can STILL
>>>>     manually connect at least a sub-portion of the
>>>>     copper.
>>>
>>> Manually? You need an expert to go in the exchange and rewire the cables
>>> to connect two phones permanently. Maybe, because the batteries are the
>>> wrong voltage. Certainly no dialing.
>> 
>> I've not even pointed out to him yet that in most of those "bundles" of
>> 4000 pairs, that there's only about 8 or 10 different colors (certianly
>> not 4000 colors).  So "working out" which red/black, from the 10,000
>> red/black pairs that terminate at the switch, connect to "joe's pizza"
>> is a non-trivial job for the non-expert.
> 
> Heh, absolutely.
> 
> Although you can find the cable at the... I don't know the English name, 
> a rack of wire wrapping pins. 4000 at one side, connecting to 4000 at 
> the other side which go to the actual switch. These are labelled, but 
> you need to know the system. I have not wired these, so here I have to 
> guess, but the phone number is not written here. Rather wire number of 
> the bundle on the one side, and equipment number on the other side. You 
> need a table to find out which is which, possibly computerized, possibly 
> printed and stored in large binders.

Given how many lines terminated in any given central office building, 
there has to be a labeling system.  But it won't be something that 
anyone can just walk into and begin connecting random lengths of spare 
copper pairs onto to "reconnect" a small portion of customers to each 
other.  And yes, no dialing.  You get connected to your Aunt Edna two 
blocks over, but you two are the only two who get to talk (unless the 
"fixer" starts wiring a party line, but then too many on a party line 
makes for a mess too).

Expecting that some lineman's going to be able to go cross connecting 
folks who want to talk (even if they wanted to all call the local 
hospital) to the destination to which they want to talk to, by manually 
wiring them up is rather insane.  It's just not feasable to do manually 
anymore, if the switching computers that usually do it are fried then 
there's lots of useless copper pairs connecting to dead phones.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#87411

Fromc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
Date2026-06-03 02:12 -0400
Message-ID<a9qdnfRK25e4W4L3nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#87400
On 6/2/26 22:25, Rich wrote:
> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2026-06-01 19:36, Rich wrote:
>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2026-06-01 07:07, c186282 wrote:
>>>>> On 5/31/26 23:50, Rich wrote:
>>>>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Argue crap all you want - the providers are
>>>>>>> generally REQUIRED to keep the POTS running
>>>>>>> and I support that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And there you are slowly beginning to maybe see why POTS service was
>>>>>> mostly "always working".  The "providers are generally required" part
>>>>>> is why.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK ... believable ... North Korea sets off
>>>>>>> several EMP bombs high over the USA. ALL the
>>>>>>> 'complicated' tech immediately DIES for a
>>>>>>> LONG time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sadly, I have bad news for you.  Your wonderful copper POTS line that
>>>>>> begins at the side of your house, and travels however far from pole to
>>>>>> pole to reach you local telephone switch, well, guess what it connects
>>>>>> to at that switch now in 2026?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The old electromechanical step-by-step switches, or electromechanical
>>>>>> crossbar switches?  Nope.  Those were, mostly, long gone by the early
>>>>>> 70's.
>>>>>
>>>>>      Saw 'em in action, late 60s. Neat !
>>>>>
>>>>>> It connects to...... a modern digitizer that digitizes the signals on
>>>>>> the line, and the entire rest of the switch, in 2026, is a fancy
>>>>>> computer system (usually running Erlang) that routes digital bits and
>>>>>> bytes around.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Guess what happens to those digital computer switches should that EMP
>>>>>> be exploded?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While you /might/ have 48v of power on the line, for a while (until the
>>>>>> diesel generators run out of fuel) you won't have any communications,
>>>>>> because *everything* after your copper wires terminate at the local
>>>>>> switch is, and has been since the early 70's, essentially VOIP service
>>>>>> now (not literally VOIP, but digital networking and/or digital
>>>>>> computerized circuit switching (i.e.  ATM)).
>>>>>
>>>>>      Well, if the digital stuff fries they can STILL
>>>>>      manually connect at least a sub-portion of the
>>>>>      copper.
>>>>
>>>> Manually? You need an expert to go in the exchange and rewire the cables
>>>> to connect two phones permanently. Maybe, because the batteries are the
>>>> wrong voltage. Certainly no dialing.
>>>
>>> I've not even pointed out to him yet that in most of those "bundles" of
>>> 4000 pairs, that there's only about 8 or 10 different colors (certianly
>>> not 4000 colors).  So "working out" which red/black, from the 10,000
>>> red/black pairs that terminate at the switch, connect to "joe's pizza"
>>> is a non-trivial job for the non-expert.
>>
>> Heh, absolutely.
>>
>> Although you can find the cable at the... I don't know the English name,
>> a rack of wire wrapping pins. 4000 at one side, connecting to 4000 at
>> the other side which go to the actual switch. These are labelled, but
>> you need to know the system. I have not wired these, so here I have to
>> guess, but the phone number is not written here. Rather wire number of
>> the bundle on the one side, and equipment number on the other side. You
>> need a table to find out which is which, possibly computerized, possibly
>> printed and stored in large binders.
> 
> Given how many lines terminated in any given central office building,
> there has to be a labeling system.  But it won't be something that
> anyone can just walk into and begin connecting random lengths of spare
> copper pairs onto to "reconnect" a small portion of customers to each
> other.  And yes, no dialing.  You get connected to your Aunt Edna two
> blocks over, but you two are the only two who get to talk (unless the
> "fixer" starts wiring a party line, but then too many on a party line
> makes for a mess too).
> 
> Expecting that some lineman's going to be able to go cross connecting
> folks who want to talk (even if they wanted to all call the local
> hospital) to the destination to which they want to talk to, by manually
> wiring them up is rather insane.  It's just not feasable to do manually
> anymore, if the switching computers that usually do it are fried then
> there's lots of useless copper pairs connecting to dead phones.

   Hmmmm ... by the 90s+ ... the number of connected
   customers surely exceeded the number of practical
   wire pairs almost everywhere. SOME kind of multiplexing
   scheme would have been absolutely required.

   NOT fully versed in that alas, a 'transitional' period,
   the exact what/where/why/how is kinda obscure, hidden
   behind corporate firewalls. DID work, but EXACTLY how
   is kinda obscure/proprietary/guessed.

   Fiber CAN be OK ... and fast ... but it's still a PHYSICAL
   system and that means Hardware Maint using HUMANS (for now).

   As mentioned somewhere, I still have a (now obscenely
   priced) COMCAST vid line. Unlike the phone company it
   comes in from 'the side'. Note SMALL trees/bushes eventually
   become BIG trees/bushes. You don't wanna know what the
   local trimming companies wanted to charge to clear a
   path for the Comcast wire. Fell around Covid time, they
   promised to come fix it all somehow, NEVER did. cheepo
   spice. Some fun Jamacian techs though.  A lot is still
   ON THE GROUND under a lot of tree limbs. The rest, well,
   bungie cords on tree limbs.

   Into Covid a neighbor went wild with lawn tools and SHREDDED
   my spliced wire. After two+ weeks I finally found SOMEONE at
   Comcast who actually understood when I said the PHYSICAL
   CABLE was broken. They kept wanting to test my Box. NOT
   the problem at all. Guess it was Page #2 in their Hindi
   diagnostic manual.

   Anyway, when it dies again it's gonna have to be a DISH.
   DO love "channel surfing" ... price about 2/3rds LESS
   since they don't have to bother with wires.

   Dish is NOT good for internet - too much satellite latency.
   Learned that WAY back, even when web pages were simple.
   33,000 miles UP, 33,000 miles DOWN, then all BACK again ...
   even the speed of light begins to SUCK. (where's "sub-space"
   comms ??? STILL waiting for my Flying Car and Atomic
   Batteries in everything too !!!)

   As for COMCAST ... time to go "semi-wireless". Run the
   cable down the MAIN lines in the Right Of Way along
   the real roads. Add a wireless "5G+" transmitter every
   block (a few more for 'country blocks'). Then you do
   not have to worry about weird trees/worse down back
   all the long driveways and dirt roads. You can get to
   the transmitters easily. MUCH less expense.

   "Comcast Business" ... well ... then you DO need a
   physical connection for the 1-10gbit link. However
   'biz' tend to be easier to GET at. Did get 'biz'
   from them eventually for my office. Initially the
   install price was horrible. However called near Xmas
   and apparently there was a sign-up drive. Got the
   long cable across a road for NOTHING  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#87420

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2026-06-03 12:03 +0200
Message-ID<sna5fmxn6s.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#87411
On 2026-06-03 08:12, c186282 wrote:
> On 6/2/26 22:25, Rich wrote:
>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2026-06-01 19:36, Rich wrote:
>>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2026-06-01 07:07, c186282 wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/31/26 23:50, Rich wrote:
>>>>>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

...

>>>>>> Well, if the digital stuff fries they can STILL manually
>>>>>> connect at least a sub-portion of the copper.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Manually? You need an expert to go in the exchange and
>>>>> rewire the cables to connect two phones permanently. Maybe,
>>>>> because the batteries are the wrong voltage. Certainly no
>>>>> dialing.
>>>> 
>>>> I've not even pointed out to him yet that in most of those
>>>> "bundles" of 4000 pairs, that there's only about 8 or 10
>>>> different colors (certianly not 4000 colors).  So "working
>>>> out" which red/black, from the 10,000 red/black pairs that
>>>> terminate at the switch, connect to "joe's pizza" is a non-
>>>> trivial job for the non-expert.
>>> 
>>> Heh, absolutely.
>>> 
>>> Although you can find the cable at the... I don't know the
>>> English name, a rack of wire wrapping pins. 4000 at one side,
>>> connecting to 4000 at the other side which go to the actual
>>> switch. These are labelled, but you need to know the system. I
>>> have not wired these, so here I have to guess, but the phone
>>> number is not written here. Rather wire number of the bundle on
>>> the one side, and equipment number on the other side. You need a
>>> table to find out which is which, possibly computerized,
>>> possibly printed and stored in large binders.
>> 
>> Given how many lines terminated in any given central office
>> building, there has to be a labeling system.  But it won't be
>> something that anyone can just walk into and begin connecting
>> random lengths of spare copper pairs onto to "reconnect" a small
>> portion of customers to each other.  And yes, no dialing.  You get
>> connected to your Aunt Edna two blocks over, but you two are the
>> only two who get to talk (unless the "fixer" starts wiring a party
>> line, but then too many on a party line makes for a mess too).
>> 
>> Expecting that some lineman's going to be able to go cross
>> connecting folks who want to talk (even if they wanted to all call
>> the local hospital) to the destination to which they want to talk
>> to, by manually wiring them up is rather insane.  It's just not
>> feasable to do manually anymore, if the switching computers that
>> usually do it are fried then there's lots of useless copper pairs
>> connecting to dead phones.
> 
> Hmmmm ... by the 90s+ ... the number of connected customers surely
> exceeded the number of practical wire pairs almost everywhere. SOME
> kind of multiplexing scheme would have been absolutely required.
> 
> NOT fully versed in that alas, a 'transitional' period, the exact
> what/where/why/how is kinda obscure, hidden behind corporate
> firewalls. DID work, but EXACTLY how is kinda obscure/proprietary/
> guessed.

By the 90's, it was digital exchanges. The working I explained in
another post, it is not multiplexing. Simple concept, the difficulty is 
the scale, and the details.

Here by the end of the 90's there remained a few (a hundred?) of 
electromechanical exchanges, some hybrid.

Redoing a big exchange back from digital to electromechanical is a huge
task, and requires expert knowledge that no longer exists. It would have
to be reinvented. Assuming there is room in the building.

...

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#87429

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-06-03 12:06 +0100
Message-ID<10vp1r1$3igml$6@dont-email.me>
In reply to#87420
On 03/06/2026 11:03, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-06-03 08:12, c186282 wrote:
>> On 6/2/26 22:25, Rich wrote:
>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2026-06-01 19:36, Rich wrote:
>>>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2026-06-01 07:07, c186282 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/31/26 23:50, Rich wrote:
>>>>>>>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>>>>>> Well, if the digital stuff fries they can STILL manually
>>>>>>> connect at least a sub-portion of the copper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Manually? You need an expert to go in the exchange and
>>>>>> rewire the cables to connect two phones permanently. Maybe,
>>>>>> because the batteries are the wrong voltage. Certainly no
>>>>>> dialing.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've not even pointed out to him yet that in most of those
>>>>> "bundles" of 4000 pairs, that there's only about 8 or 10
>>>>> different colors (certianly not 4000 colors).  So "working
>>>>> out" which red/black, from the 10,000 red/black pairs that
>>>>> terminate at the switch, connect to "joe's pizza" is a non-
>>>>> trivial job for the non-expert.
>>>>
>>>> Heh, absolutely.
>>>>
>>>> Although you can find the cable at the... I don't know the
>>>> English name, a rack of wire wrapping pins. 4000 at one side,
>>>> connecting to 4000 at the other side which go to the actual
>>>> switch. These are labelled, but you need to know the system. I
>>>> have not wired these, so here I have to guess, but the phone
>>>> number is not written here. Rather wire number of the bundle on
>>>> the one side, and equipment number on the other side. You need a
>>>> table to find out which is which, possibly computerized,
>>>> possibly printed and stored in large binders.
>>>
>>> Given how many lines terminated in any given central office
>>> building, there has to be a labeling system.  But it won't be
>>> something that anyone can just walk into and begin connecting
>>> random lengths of spare copper pairs onto to "reconnect" a small
>>> portion of customers to each other.  And yes, no dialing.  You get
>>> connected to your Aunt Edna two blocks over, but you two are the
>>> only two who get to talk (unless the "fixer" starts wiring a party
>>> line, but then too many on a party line makes for a mess too).
>>>
>>> Expecting that some lineman's going to be able to go cross
>>> connecting folks who want to talk (even if they wanted to all call
>>> the local hospital) to the destination to which they want to talk
>>> to, by manually wiring them up is rather insane.  It's just not
>>> feasable to do manually anymore, if the switching computers that
>>> usually do it are fried then there's lots of useless copper pairs
>>> connecting to dead phones.
>>
>> Hmmmm ... by the 90s+ ... the number of connected customers surely
>> exceeded the number of practical wire pairs almost everywhere. SOME
>> kind of multiplexing scheme would have been absolutely required.
>>
>> NOT fully versed in that alas, a 'transitional' period, the exact
>> what/where/why/how is kinda obscure, hidden behind corporate
>> firewalls. DID work, but EXACTLY how is kinda obscure/proprietary/
>> guessed.
> 
> By the 90's, it was digital exchanges. The working I explained in
> another post, it is not multiplexing. Simple concept, the difficulty is 
> the scale, and the details.
> 
Time division multiplexing was used from the 60s to the 90s on backhaul. 
After that packet switching multiplexing like frame relay was used.

the carriage of more than one circuit over the same medium is always 
multiplexing, it just gets done in different ways.

-- 
There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale 
returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.

Mark Twain

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#87428

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-06-03 12:02 +0100
Message-ID<10vp1kj$3igml$5@dont-email.me>
In reply to#87411
On 03/06/2026 07:12, c186282 wrote:
> Hmmmm ... by the 90s+ ... the number of connected
>    customers surely exceeded the number of practical
>    wire pairs almost everywhere. SOME kind of multiplexing
>    scheme would have been absolutely required.
> 
No. it never did. very few cistomers were ever multiplaxed. One pair per 
subcscriber line.


>    NOT fully versed in that alas, a 'transitional' period,
>    the exact what/where/why/how is kinda obscure, hidden
>    behind corporate firewalls. DID work, but EXACTLY how
>    is kinda obscure/proprietary/guessed.
> 
>    Fiber CAN be OK ... and fast ... but it's still a PHYSICAL
>    system and that means Hardware Maint using HUMANS (for now).
> 
Are you really that dim, or just a good actor?

Mainteneance is not a function of anything other than failure rate, and 
physicality has no correlation with that.

Cf the Moon. No-one maintains it.




-- 
"An intellectual is a person knowledgeable in one field who speaks out 
only in others...”

Tom Wolfe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#87452

FromCharlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>
Date2026-06-03 18:00 +0000
Message-ID<MYZTR.139002$Grwb.21955@fx13.iad>
In reply to#87411
On 2026-06-03, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

>    Into Covid a neighbor went wild with lawn tools and SHREDDED
>    my spliced wire. After two+ weeks I finally found SOMEONE at
>    Comcast who actually understood when I said the PHYSICAL
>    CABLE was broken. They kept wanting to test my Box. NOT
>    the problem at all. Guess it was Page #2 in their Hindi
>    diagnostic manual.

BTDT.  There was construction going on across the street and a
dump truck tore out the fiber connection from the pole across
the street to our house.  It took days to find someone who
understood the concept of physical damage to the wiring.
The possibility didn't seem to be anywhere in their scripts.

-- 
/~\  Charlie Gibbs                  |  Growth for the sake of
\ /  <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid>      |  growth is the ideology
 X   I'm really at ac.dekanfrus     |  of the cancer cell.
/ \  if you read it the right way.  |    -- Edward Abbey

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#87331

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-06-01 12:26 +0100
Message-ID<10vjq9l$26505$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#87324
On 01/06/2026 06:07, c186282 wrote:
> Most tech fried ... hey ... telegraphy works  🙂
It didnt.
Neither did electrical power cables.
Underound fibre might

-- 
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#87338

FromRich <rich@example.invalid>
Date2026-06-01 17:31 +0000
Message-ID<10vkfmd$2ci6m$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#87324
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
> On 5/31/26 23:50, Rich wrote:
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>> Argue crap all you want - the providers are
>>> generally REQUIRED to keep the POTS running
>>> and I support that.
>> 
>> And there you are slowly beginning to maybe see why POTS service was
>> mostly "always working".  The "providers are generally required" part
>> is why.
>> 
>>> OK ... believable ... North Korea sets off
>>> several EMP bombs high over the USA. ALL the
>>> 'complicated' tech immediately DIES for a
>>> LONG time.
>> 
>> Sadly, I have bad news for you.  Your wonderful copper POTS line that
>> begins at the side of your house, and travels however far from pole to
>> pole to reach you local telephone switch, well, guess what it connects
>> to at that switch now in 2026?
>> 
>> The old electromechanical step-by-step switches, or electromechanical
>> crossbar switches?  Nope.  Those were, mostly, long gone by the early
>> 70's.
> 
>   Saw 'em in action, late 60s. Neat !
> 
>> It connects to...... a modern digitizer that digitizes the signals on
>> the line, and the entire rest of the switch, in 2026, is a fancy
>> computer system (usually running Erlang) that routes digital bits and
>> bytes around.
>> 
>> Guess what happens to those digital computer switches should that EMP
>> be exploded?
>> 
>> While you /might/ have 48v of power on the line, for a while (until the
>> diesel generators run out of fuel) you won't have any communications,
>> because *everything* after your copper wires terminate at the local
>> switch is, and has been since the early 70's, essentially VOIP service
>> now (not literally VOIP, but digital networking and/or digital
>> computerized circuit switching (i.e.  ATM)).
> 
>   Well, if the digital stuff fries they can STILL
>   manually connect at least a sub-portion of the
>   copper.

No, they can't.  The copper ends at a pair of screw down lugs attached 
to a digitizer board in what is, to use a word you might be familiar 
with, a computer server rack.

There's no longer any copper interconnecting anything, other than your 
handset in your home to the screw down lugs on that digitizer board.  
Every thing else beyond that point, that allows "communication" out 
from the switch, is all digital computer networking (usually TDM or 
ATM, but still, in effect, WAV files being transmitted over TCPIP).

None of the "copper" routing interconnect that made the old Ma-Bell 
AT&T the "phone company" exists anywhere other than on display in a 
museum somewhere.  It is all digital computer networking, and it has 
pretty much been all digital networking since somewhere around the 
early 70's.

The *only* "copper" parts left of the old pre-computer system are the 
star lines from the switch building out to each building which happens 
to still have old copper POTS service.

>   Most tech fried ... hey ... telegraphy works  :-)
>   Simple relay-based line amps. Worked in 1850 and
>   can work now over remaining POTS lines. Find a
>   neighborhood 'telegraph guy'.

And can only possibly work to another copper pair terminating in the 
same switch building as yours.  And even then, this requires someone 
running back and forth inside the building connecting the pairs that 
want to "telegraph" with each other via other long connecting patch 
cords (which don't exist at the switch waiting to be used).

Want to contact the hospital a couple miles up the street?  Is it wired 
to a different switch building?  If yes, then you can't do morse code 
over copper wires to the hospital no matter how much you want to do so, 
because there is simply no copper between the switch buildings anymore.

If the digital computers that handle the telephone networking are 
fried/out/dead, there's no communicating via those POTS copper pairs to 
anyone.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#87344

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2026-06-01 22:49 +0200
Message-ID<0r71fmxjks.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#87338
On 2026-06-01 19:31, Rich wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>> On 5/31/26 23:50, Rich wrote:


>>    Well, if the digital stuff fries they can STILL
>>    manually connect at least a sub-portion of the
>>    copper.
> 
> No, they can't.  The copper ends at a pair of screw down lugs attached
> to a digitizer board in what is, to use a word you might be familiar
> with, a computer server rack.
> 
> There's no longer any copper interconnecting anything, other than your
> handset in your home to the screw down lugs on that digitizer board.
> Every thing else beyond that point, that allows "communication" out
> from the switch, is all digital computer networking (usually TDM or
> ATM, but still, in effect, WAV files being transmitted over TCPIP).

The basic idea is very simple.

You take the wire and connect it to an 8 bit DAC. The output of that DAC 
is presented to a microprocessor there as one memory address. If you 
have worked with microprocesors, you will know that this is simple. 
Only, that you scale this so that you have thousands of those DACs 
mapped into the microprocessor memory.

Now, to connect subscriber A to subscriber B, you simply copy memory 
position A to position B about 8 thousand times per second. The DAC is 
synced to this speed.

Now, imagine the microprocessor just running thousands of those copy 
operations from thousand of output positions to input positions. Not 
simultaneously, but in sequence. When a subscriber phones another 
subscriber, you simply change the table, read from C, write to D.

Just add the complication that you actually have a DAC and ADC on each 
circuit, because there are signals going and out in the same copper pair.

This is the basic idea of digital switching in POTS technology. There 
are no metal contacts that move. On a 5ESSS that microprocessor is a 
single 68000. But there can be several units. And each unit on a city 
exchange occupies several big racks. Think you need thousands of ADC/DAC 
units.

Improvement: remove the DAC/ADC, and you have ISDN.


EMP bomb, all gone. You can shield the switch, but the switch has miles 
long antenas going out to the city... it fries.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#87403

FromRich <rich@example.invalid>
Date2026-06-03 02:37 +0000
Message-ID<10vo40k$3b3aj$5@dont-email.me>
In reply to#87344
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2026-06-01 19:31, Rich wrote:
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>> On 5/31/26 23:50, Rich wrote:
> 
> 
>>>    Well, if the digital stuff fries they can STILL
>>>    manually connect at least a sub-portion of the
>>>    copper.
>> 
>> No, they can't.  The copper ends at a pair of screw down lugs attached
>> to a digitizer board in what is, to use a word you might be familiar
>> with, a computer server rack.
>> 
>> There's no longer any copper interconnecting anything, other than your
>> handset in your home to the screw down lugs on that digitizer board.
>> Every thing else beyond that point, that allows "communication" out
>> from the switch, is all digital computer networking (usually TDM or
>> ATM, but still, in effect, WAV files being transmitted over TCPIP).
> 
> The basic idea is very simple.
> 
> You take the wire and connect it to an 8 bit DAC. The output of that DAC 
> is presented to a microprocessor there as one memory address. If you 
> have worked with microprocesors, you will know that this is simple. 
> Only, that you scale this so that you have thousands of those DACs 
> mapped into the microprocessor memory.
> 
> Now, to connect subscriber A to subscriber B, you simply copy memory 
> position A to position B about 8 thousand times per second. The DAC is 
> synced to this speed.
> 
> Now, imagine the microprocessor just running thousands of those copy 
> operations from thousand of output positions to input positions. Not 
> simultaneously, but in sequence. When a subscriber phones another 
> subscriber, you simply change the table, read from C, write to D.
> 
> Just add the complication that you actually have a DAC and ADC on each 
> circuit, because there are signals going and out in the same copper pair.
> 
> This is the basic idea of digital switching in POTS technology. There 
> are no metal contacts that move. On a 5ESSS that microprocessor is a 
> single 68000. But there can be several units. And each unit on a city 
> exchange occupies several big racks. Think you need thousands of ADC/DAC 
> units.
> 
> Improvement: remove the DAC/ADC, and you have ISDN.

That's a nice simplified description of the gist of how it works.

> EMP bomb, all gone. You can shield the switch, but the switch has miles 
> long antenas going out to the city... it fries.

Yep.  And with a fried switching computer, you have thousands if 
*isolated* miles long antennas (for c186282: the copper pairs) going 
out into the city.  A useless fried DAC/ADC board is wired to one end 
of the antenna, a 1960's all mechanical POTS phone connected to the 
other end.  But nothing doing anything behind the DAC/ADC to be able to 
communicate with anyone.  And no longer any way to "just add some more 
wires" and make connections between phones.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#87286

Fromnot@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev)
Date2026-05-30 09:09 +1000
Message-ID<6a1a1c98@news.ausics.net>
In reply to#87255
Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>   Kind of agree with the sentiment that copper should always be at 
>>   hand for 'emergency' communications at a minimum.  Towers die, cell 
>>   contracts expire, copper keeps on going.
> 
> The legacy copper phones only "kept on going" because POTS (copper) 
> phone service was a highly regulated utility with requirements for 
> upkeep and maintence so that it /would/ just keep on going.
> 
> Without that upkeep, it eventually falls into disrepair and stops 
> working just like the rest.

You bet, that's my POTS line here in Australia described exactly.
Even though I just learnt our government is paying $270 million a
year to maintain it (on top of the fees paid by customers) in
places not connected to fibre or "fixed wireless" internet. Money
straight into the telco's profits, no doubt. The exchanges even
look abandoned now with peeling paint etc. 

> It's only real difference from towers is fewer possibilities to go 
> wrong when the 'system' is just a long pair of copper wires vs. complex 
> electronics systems for a radio tower (i.e., no capicators to dry out 
> and fail in a long pair of copper wires).  Most failures were 
> mechanical (something physically tearing down the wires) or chemical 
> (water infiltration corroding the connection points).

Well here it's almost always the exchange that keeps going
wrong. Then they take between a few days to a few weeks to fix it,
which I think just means how long until someone gets around to
visiting it. Someone said they're required to fix it within 24
hours, but if that's true then they're completely ignoring that.

> But fail it did.  If the lines were above ground then tree branches (or 
> automobiles) would take out the lines.  If the lines were underground 
> then water infiltration into the conduits would result in noise or 
> nothing working.  I had this one myself on my pair once.  Line that had 
> been nice and quiet (and worked well for DSL) suddenly sounded like 
> someone was scraping a turntable needle over a vinyl record constantly.  
> Reported it to Verizon, they took some time to fix, but I eventually 
> learned the cause was an underground wiring vault a couple miles away 
> had flooded.

Yeah my old line rotted away completely after it was noisy for
years and they switched me to a spare which also gets noisy when
the ground's wet, but since we haven't had decent rainfall for
years that hasn't been a problem lately. Since that line switch
~5+ years ago I only had one other line fault late last year when
the council slashing grass on the roadsides cut the line. Amazingly
that _was_ fixed within about 24 hours, though when the exchange
died yet again later that week affecting everyone using it rather
than just people down my road, it took them 4-5 days to fix it. And
the exchange breaks far more frequently, in fact it was breaking
every time there was a power failure for a year or so, but it does
seem to be surviving those these days (except the obviously-dead
battery there means you still can't make calls while the power's
off anymore).

> But your individual experience dependend upon what happened with your 
> specific pair.  If you were lucky and no falling trees, drunk drivers, 
> or ice storms happened to pull down your copper pair, and no leaky 
> underground conduits soaked it, then to you it appeared to be 
> impervious to failure.  Reality from the other size (the phone company) 
> viewpoint is that something, somewhere, was always failing and needing 
> repair.

So apparantly our largest telco decided to just send the government
the bill, then it eventually realised the government didn't
notice/care anymore if they didn't fix things quickly or properly
in return for that money anyway. Then they stopped mobile phones
working properly here as well when they turned off 3G...

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#87291

From"Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2026-05-30 13:17 +0200
Message-ID<ojtqemx854.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
In reply to#87286
On 2026-05-30 01:09, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>>    Kind of agree with the sentiment that copper should always be at
>>>    hand for 'emergency' communications at a minimum.  Towers die, cell
>>>    contracts expire, copper keeps on going.
>>
>> The legacy copper phones only "kept on going" because POTS (copper)
>> phone service was a highly regulated utility with requirements for
>> upkeep and maintence so that it /would/ just keep on going.
>>
>> Without that upkeep, it eventually falls into disrepair and stops
>> working just like the rest.
> 
> You bet, that's my POTS line here in Australia described exactly.
> Even though I just learnt our government is paying $270 million a
> year to maintain it (on top of the fees paid by customers) in
> places not connected to fibre or "fixed wireless" internet. Money
> straight into the telco's profits, no doubt. The exchanges even
> look abandoned now with peeling paint etc.
> 
>> It's only real difference from towers is fewer possibilities to go
>> wrong when the 'system' is just a long pair of copper wires vs. complex
>> electronics systems for a radio tower (i.e., no capicators to dry out
>> and fail in a long pair of copper wires).  Most failures were
>> mechanical (something physically tearing down the wires) or chemical
>> (water infiltration corroding the connection points).
> 
> Well here it's almost always the exchange that keeps going
> wrong. Then they take between a few days to a few weeks to fix it,
> which I think just means how long until someone gets around to
> visiting it. Someone said they're required to fix it within 24
> hours, but if that's true then they're completely ignoring that.

Someone visiting, finding someone that knows those exchanges (all old 
people and running out), then finding the spares of abandoned 
technology, shipping them...

> 
>> But fail it did.  If the lines were above ground then tree branches (or
>> automobiles) would take out the lines.  If the lines were underground
>> then water infiltration into the conduits would result in noise or
>> nothing working.  I had this one myself on my pair once.  Line that had
>> been nice and quiet (and worked well for DSL) suddenly sounded like
>> someone was scraping a turntable needle over a vinyl record constantly.
>> Reported it to Verizon, they took some time to fix, but I eventually
>> learned the cause was an underground wiring vault a couple miles away
>> had flooded.
> 
> Yeah my old line rotted away completely after it was noisy for
> years and they switched me to a spare which also gets noisy when
> the ground's wet, but since we haven't had decent rainfall for
> years that hasn't been a problem lately. Since that line switch
> ~5+ years ago I only had one other line fault late last year when
> the council slashing grass on the roadsides cut the line. Amazingly
> that _was_ fixed within about 24 hours, though when the exchange
> died yet again later that week affecting everyone using it rather
> than just people down my road, it took them 4-5 days to fix it. And
> the exchange breaks far more frequently, in fact it was breaking
> every time there was a power failure for a year or so, but it does
> seem to be surviving those these days (except the obviously-dead
> battery there means you still can't make calls while the power's
> off anymore).

Those exchanges are not designed to suffer a sudden power off. And 
rebooting is not automatic, it takes a human with special knowledge to 
do it, because it is something done once in life.

> 
>> But your individual experience dependend upon what happened with your
>> specific pair.  If you were lucky and no falling trees, drunk drivers,
>> or ice storms happened to pull down your copper pair, and no leaky
>> underground conduits soaked it, then to you it appeared to be
>> impervious to failure.  Reality from the other size (the phone company)
>> viewpoint is that something, somewhere, was always failing and needing
>> repair.
> 
> So apparantly our largest telco decided to just send the government
> the bill, then it eventually realised the government didn't
> notice/care anymore if they didn't fix things quickly or properly
> in return for that money anyway. Then they stopped mobile phones
> working properly here as well when they turned off 3G...
> 


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc


csiph-web