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

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

Redundancy/Survival

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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> - 2026-06-01 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 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 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 "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 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 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8  Next page →

#87219

On 5/27/26 09:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 27/05/2026 04:41, c186282 wrote:
>> What IS getting generally annoying is that the bulk
>>    of my monthly expense were mostly "utilities" - power
>>    and water, basic landline, plus pTax. NOW it's becoming
>>    where 'communications' expenses are exceeding even that.
>>    There really does seem to be some Vast Vampire Konspiracy
>>    at work here.
> 
> It is the basis of the Democratic Dilemma. How to have enough people who 
> can afford to buy your shit products without actually employing them and 
> giving them the money in the first place. Or letting them have the 
> freedom to employ themselves.

   At some point, probably soon, that idea is
   going to collapse. It'll be a big shake-up.

   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.

   Frankly, I won't WANT to give any corp access
   to such broad-sweep info on me. Vlad or Xi will
   be plugged-in. Don't HAVE many 'subscriptions'
   at all, and LOOK for the charges every month.

   But most DON'T look anymore ... then wonder why
   they're going broke.

   When 'AI' grabs their jobs ... well ......
   interesting times ..........

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

#87237

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. 

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

#87252

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 ...

   BTW, the old DSL had superior performance to my New
   And Improved 5G router ...... but one day, unannounced,
   they just killed the DSL. Rebooted the router and it
   was all just GONE. "Sorry, we have discontinued ..."

   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.

   An alt comm route, alt media/tech, still seems VERY
   much a 'redundancy'/survival issue. Can't move my
   old number to wireless anything - wireless uses
   different xxx-0123 numbers always now. Banks, brokers,
   insurers, docs, govt, LOTS of people, still call the old
   number. Good old ANSWER MACHINE to sort out the assholes.

   And my cell MIGHT crap out ... NOT good for 2FA accounts.

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

#87256

On Thu, 28 May 2026 22:14:29 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    But, I'm not gonna tamper. That would be THE excuse to snip my
>    landline. Can tell, they're just LOOKING for an excuse ...

There's that too. CenturyLink is the landline provider and I can see them 
saying I need a long distance provider. AT&T is less than $15/mo so it 
isn't a huge deal.

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

#87261

On 5/29/26 00:41, rbowman wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2026 22:14:29 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>>     But, I'm not gonna tamper. That would be THE excuse to snip my
>>     landline. Can tell, they're just LOOKING for an excuse ...
> 
> There's that too. CenturyLink is the landline provider and I can see them
> saying I need a long distance provider. AT&T is less than $15/mo so it
> isn't a huge deal.


   My AT&T is *very* expensive now ... they ARE trying
   to scare everybody away from their copper lines.

   For OUR good ? NO !

   Well, I can afford it ... I'm gonna put up with their
   extortion. MAY be some lawyers who'll get some of that
   back later on.

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

#87266

On Fri, 29 May 2026 01:53:35 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    My AT&T is *very* expensive now ... they ARE trying to scare
>    everybody away from their copper lines.

CenturyLink doesn't seem to be trying to scare people away but the cost 
has risen with more taxes and so forth. Usually I have 4G on the T-Mobile 
net but sometimes I need to move the phone around. So far the copper 
connection works when I pick it up.

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

#87335

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 May 2026 22:14:29 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>>    But, I'm not gonna tamper. That would be THE excuse to snip my
>>    landline. Can tell, they're just LOOKING for an excuse ...
> 
> There's that too. CenturyLink is the landline provider and I can see them 
> saying I need a long distance provider. AT&T is less than $15/mo so it 
> isn't a huge deal.

The two are no longer inseperable as they were when Ma-Bell was a 
single monopoly.

You can (or at least you very well should be able to) have local 
service from CenturyLink without long distance from AT&T.

I never bought long distance service for my POTS line, it was local 
only.  And the only issue that ever occurred is I could not make 
direct-dialed long distance calls.  For the once in five years I ever 
needed to do so I solved the problem using one of those old "calling 
cards" services.

And Verizon never had any issues with no LD service.

The number is now connected to a VOIP provider, so I get "anywhere in 
the USA" calling for the exact same price as every other call (the very 
concept of 'long distance' eroded decades ago, not that the 'long 
distance' carriers ever bothered to inform anyone of that fact).

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

#87345

On 2026-06-01 15:19, Rich wrote:
> rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 May 2026 22:14:29 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>
>>>     But, I'm not gonna tamper. That would be THE excuse to snip my
>>>     landline. Can tell, they're just LOOKING for an excuse ...
>>
>> There's that too. CenturyLink is the landline provider and I can see them
>> saying I need a long distance provider. AT&T is less than $15/mo so it
>> isn't a huge deal.
> 
> The two are no longer inseperable as they were when Ma-Bell was a
> single monopoly.
> 
> You can (or at least you very well should be able to) have local
> service from CenturyLink without long distance from AT&T.
> 
> I never bought long distance service for my POTS line, it was local
> only.  And the only issue that ever occurred is I could not make
> direct-dialed long distance calls.  For the once in five years I ever
> needed to do so I solved the problem using one of those old "calling
> cards" services.
> 
> And Verizon never had any issues with no LD service.
> 
> The number is now connected to a VOIP provider, so I get "anywhere in
> the USA" calling for the exact same price as every other call (the very
> concept of 'long distance' eroded decades ago, not that the 'long
> distance' carriers ever bothered to inform anyone of that fact).

No, mine keeps charging long distance fares :-(

Well, I can call anyone on Spain for free, but not outside.

And they keep secret the VoIP configuration.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#87334

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.

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

#87346

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]

#87362

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]

#87367

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]

#87170

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]

#87195

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


-- 
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

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

#87207

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]

#87213

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]

#87220

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
>>    have fired all the humans who knew how to deal
>>    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]

#87225

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
>>>    have fired all the humans who knew how to deal
>>>    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.
> 
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]

#87244

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
>>>>    have fired all the humans who knew how to deal
>>>>    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.
>>
> 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]

#87245

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
>>>>>    have fired all the humans who knew how to deal
>>>>>    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.
>>>
>> 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.

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]

Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8  Next page →

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

csiph-web