Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #87133 > unrolled thread
| Started by | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-05-26 02:21 -0400 |
| Last post | 2026-05-26 17:21 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 193 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 02:21 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 08:46 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-05-26 09:49 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 04:47 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 11:25 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-26 09:53 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 04:38 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 11:35 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-26 22:09 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 16:17 -0700
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-27 00:02 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-27 00:11 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-05-28 10:32 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-27 08:41 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-27 11:04 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 03:31 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-28 09:18 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-28 13:42 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-28 15:01 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 21:34 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 11:07 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-29 12:55 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 12:14 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-29 13:36 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 13:26 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-29 19:36 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 17:24 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-29 19:37 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 19:36 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 22:34 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-30 04:29 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-30 13:09 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-30 23:29 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-05-31 21:45 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:15 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-01 18:53 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-02 01:46 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-02 03:01 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:12 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 10:16 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:09 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 21:26 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:48 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 14:35 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 17:25 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival 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 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 "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 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 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 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-29 04:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7sjnrFu3pfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87252 |
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]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-29 01:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <97OcnW0zhIRttIT3nZ2dnZfqnPQAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87256 |
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]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-29 06:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7sq8kFu3pfU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87261 |
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]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-01 13:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10vk0s8$27ab8$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87256 |
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]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-01 22:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <n081fmxjks.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87335 |
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]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-03 02:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10vo4ii$3b3aj$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87345 |
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > 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. The AT&T breakup here in the USA back in the early 80's separated (as in completely severed) the connection between "local phone service" and "long distance" service. The old AT&T "local offices" became the "baby bells" (Verizon, Pacific Bell, other's I've forgotten the names of now). The old AT&T long distance portion became a "long distance provider" but phone subscribers (who still had to use a baby-bell for phone service) were no longer required to have long distance service. It sounds like Spain works a bit differently than what formed here in the US. In my case, I moved my Verizon phone number to voip.ms (a VOIP provider). Instead of, IIRC, about $45/month at the time for Verizon POTS service I pay the VOIP provider about $2/month. That is for "metered VOIP", so all calls incur a per minute charge (something like $0.001/minute, i.e. so small as to be nearly zero). But I can call my next door neighbor, or someone in Hawaii or Alaska (very long way away) for the same $0.001/minute. They do offer an 'unmetered' plan as well, but it runs something like $15/month or $19/month, and I seldom ever make or receive phone calls, so paying for 'unmetered' just didn't make sense in my case. Now, yes, I'm still "paying Verizon", as I'm paying them for FIOS internet service, so that I 'can' then also use VOIP for phone service. But I'd be paying for the internet service in any case, so it's not like I have FIOS /just/ to support the VOIP phone service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-03 00:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10voag2$3d2ba$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87404 |
On 6/2/2026 10:46 PM, Rich wrote: > Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> 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. > > The AT&T breakup here in the USA back in the early 80's separated (as > in completely severed) the connection between "local phone service" and > "long distance" service. The old AT&T "local offices" became the "baby > bells" (Verizon, Pacific Bell, other's I've forgotten the names of > now). The old AT&T long distance portion became a "long distance > provider" but phone subscribers (who still had to use a baby-bell for > phone service) were no longer required to have long distance service. > > It sounds like Spain works a bit differently than what formed here in > the US. > > In my case, I moved my Verizon phone number to voip.ms (a VOIP > provider). Instead of, IIRC, about $45/month at the time for Verizon > POTS service I pay the VOIP provider about $2/month. That is for > "metered VOIP", so all calls incur a per minute charge (something like > $0.001/minute, i.e. so small as to be nearly zero). But I can call my > next door neighbor, or someone in Hawaii or Alaska (very long way away) > for the same $0.001/minute. They do offer an 'unmetered' plan as well, > but it runs something like $15/month or $19/month, and I seldom ever > make or receive phone calls, so paying for 'unmetered' just didn't make > sense in my case. But this is conflating with regulated facilities based phone service with unregulated over the top services. Also, they are not mutually exclusive. I have over 70 phone numbers myself through IP-based CLECs and thousands of minutes of call volume flow monthly through various Asterisk systems of mine for me and other folks. But I still keep the regulated POTS line because it serves a fundamentally different purpose. VoIP is great for cheap phone calls that are fine if they are best-effort, drop a few packets, etc. etc. Relying on "cheap" stuff for life/death situations is a different matter. Quality is another factor. Verizon's 5c/min long-distance plan is TDM-based, very good quality that is hard to match with VoIP services. I don't use it much, but I will often use it if I know I'm calling another POTS line. If I'm calling a VoIP or wireless number, then it's not worth the cost since the quality will suck anyways, and I send the call through a VoIP carrier. (And sometimes, I use them in tandem; placing a call to one of my VoIP numbers over the POTS line and then terminating the call often results in a noticeably better connection than doing "over the top VoIP" using a residential broadband connection.) I realize that most people these days don't care about voice quality and are quite happy with poor quality VoIP services or cell phones. I think a lot of people have forgotten or don't even know what good quality phone calls even sound like.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-03 03:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <86ecndgZ6pfcSoL3nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87408 |
On 6/3/26 00:27, InterLinked wrote: > On 6/2/2026 10:46 PM, Rich wrote: >> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>> 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. >> >> The AT&T breakup here in the USA back in the early 80's separated (as >> in completely severed) the connection between "local phone service" and >> "long distance" service. The old AT&T "local offices" became the "baby >> bells" (Verizon, Pacific Bell, other's I've forgotten the names of >> now). The old AT&T long distance portion became a "long distance >> provider" but phone subscribers (who still had to use a baby-bell for >> phone service) were no longer required to have long distance service. >> >> It sounds like Spain works a bit differently than what formed here in >> the US. >> >> In my case, I moved my Verizon phone number to voip.ms (a VOIP >> provider). Instead of, IIRC, about $45/month at the time for Verizon >> POTS service I pay the VOIP provider about $2/month. That is for >> "metered VOIP", so all calls incur a per minute charge (something like >> $0.001/minute, i.e. so small as to be nearly zero). But I can call my >> next door neighbor, or someone in Hawaii or Alaska (very long way away) >> for the same $0.001/minute. They do offer an 'unmetered' plan as well, >> but it runs something like $15/month or $19/month, and I seldom ever >> make or receive phone calls, so paying for 'unmetered' just didn't make >> sense in my case. > > But this is conflating with regulated facilities based phone service > with unregulated over the top services. Also, they are not mutually > exclusive. I have over 70 phone numbers myself through IP-based CLECs > and thousands of minutes of call volume flow monthly through various > Asterisk systems of mine for me and other folks. But I still keep the > regulated POTS line because it serves a fundamentally different purpose. > VoIP is great for cheap phone calls that are fine if they are best- > effort, drop a few packets, etc. etc. Relying on "cheap" stuff for life/ > death situations is a different matter. OK - "unlimited free" may NOT be so 'realistic'. Sending info COSTS in many ways. Ruin that and you've ruined yer whole comm system (or have to support it with ridiculous 'socialistic' means). > Quality is another factor. Verizon's 5c/min long-distance plan is TDM- > based, very good quality that is hard to match with VoIP services. I > don't use it much, but I will often use it if I know I'm calling another > POTS line. If I'm calling a VoIP or wireless number, then it's not worth > the cost since the quality will suck anyways, and I send the call > through a VoIP carrier. "Quality" for digital voice/data comms WAS bad - but so was the TECH. Now (using vastly more CPU/MEM/GPUs) it's most always gonna be very good. VOIP and related are now very decent - very low latency and high quality. TOOK awhile. > (And sometimes, I use them in tandem; placing a call to one of my VoIP > numbers over the POTS line and then terminating the call often results > in a noticeably better connection than doing "over the top VoIP" using a > residential broadband connection.) Modern comms piggyback, or overlay, on EVERY available connection method. Yer TCP frames likely traverse fiber, copper, microwave, maybe even sat. It's why UDP isn't that good outside yer door. > I realize that most people these days don't care about voice > and are quite happy with poor quality VoIP services or cell > phones. I think a lot of people have forgotten or don't even > know what good quality phone calls even sound like. Well, "poor" quality now was "Just GREAT" quality even 10-15 years ago. Also, Gen-Z/A2 are AFRAID to talk to actual humans ... not sure why but it's documented. They'll text the bartender rather than call-out an order. Worrisome. Socially decompositional. Soon they'll even be afraid to text ...... then it's ALL Done. All Fall Down Go Boom. Vlad/Xi will be delighted - most Westerners socially/psych paralyzed, unable to cooperate in real time with anyone on any subject. Note, sorry, my provider/TBird crapped ... had to resend using a copy ....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-03 03:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <a9qdnfZK25eFT4L3nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87404 |
On 6/2/26 22:46, Rich wrote: > Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> 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. > > The AT&T breakup here in the USA back in the early 80's separated (as > in completely severed) the connection between "local phone service" and > "long distance" service. The old AT&T "local offices" became the "baby > bells" (Verizon, Pacific Bell, other's I've forgotten the names of > now). The old AT&T long distance portion became a "long distance > provider" but phone subscribers (who still had to use a baby-bell for > phone service) were no longer required to have long distance service. > > It sounds like Spain works a bit differently than what formed here in > the US. > > In my case, I moved my Verizon phone number to voip.ms (a VOIP > provider). Instead of, IIRC, about $45/month at the time for Verizon > POTS service I pay the VOIP provider about $2/month. That is for > "metered VOIP", so all calls incur a per minute charge (something like > $0.001/minute, i.e. so small as to be nearly zero). But I can call my > next door neighbor, or someone in Hawaii or Alaska (very long way away) > for the same $0.001/minute. They do offer an 'unmetered' plan as well, > but it runs something like $15/month or $19/month, and I seldom ever > make or receive phone calls, so paying for 'unmetered' just didn't make > sense in my case. > > Now, yes, I'm still "paying Verizon", as I'm paying them for FIOS > internet service, so that I 'can' then also use VOIP for phone service. > But I'd be paying for the internet service in any case, so it's not > like I have FIOS /just/ to support the VOIP phone service. My Biz Sense is quasi-Libertarian. USUALLY there are good reasons to break up 'monopolies' - lowers prices for all and spurs innovation. However in the Bell/ATT case, the "Baby Bells" were NOT an improvement by and large. Still aren't, even the remaining babies double-up on the old ATT lines/links. The sheer investment to go it totally alone - WAY TOO ! Also, how does network-A connect to network-B ? That does NOT work without massive expenses. A worldwide comm system pretty much NEEDS to be homogenous and centrally planned/managed. Prices creeping too much ? Deal with THAT problem rather than destroy the backbone. Old days, you COULD dial from NYC to some random Nevada, or Mongolian, desert line Straight-Up. Might be a little 'static' sometimes but you could have a conversation. AFTER the anti-trust BS (wonder how may pols got big kickbacks ?) that wasn't as easy/cheap anymore. ATT has kind-of put it all back together again. Took a long time and weird legal maneuvers though. The "Libertarian perspective" is a GUIDE - but not an all-purpose paradigm. Gotta THINK. Politicians NEVER think ... except of their campaign finance fund ........ Note, this kind of "thinking" does, and can even more severely, impact Linux/Unix. M$/Apple would LIKE 'alternatives' DESTROYED and will offer perks if pols will help make it happen by whatever means. Recent other thread, how "Child Protection" laws can completely ruin Linux/open-source. It is NOT a trivial speculative issue at all - might easily be The Dagger M$ and Apple have long wanted. Umm ... come up with some "underground" system like NOW.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-03 12:12 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p9b5fmxcl.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87404 |
On 2026-06-03 04:46, Rich wrote: > Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> 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. > > The AT&T breakup here in the USA back in the early 80's separated (as > in completely severed) the connection between "local phone service" and > "long distance" service. The old AT&T "local offices" became the "baby > bells" (Verizon, Pacific Bell, other's I've forgotten the names of > now). The old AT&T long distance portion became a "long distance > provider" but phone subscribers (who still had to use a baby-bell for > phone service) were no longer required to have long distance service. > Curious. > It sounds like Spain works a bit differently than what formed here in > the US. Yes, local exchanges connected to routing exchanges for long distance, these to international. All the same company, except the other countries networks. The telcos I worked for were small, but the setup at Telefonica was huge. Not as huge as in the USA :-) > > In my case, I moved my Verizon phone number to voip.ms (a VOIP > provider). Instead of, IIRC, about $45/month at the time for Verizon > POTS service I pay the VOIP provider about $2/month. That is for > "metered VOIP", so all calls incur a per minute charge (something like > $0.001/minute, i.e. so small as to be nearly zero). But I can call my > next door neighbor, or someone in Hawaii or Alaska (very long way away) > for the same $0.001/minute. They do offer an 'unmetered' plan as well, > but it runs something like $15/month or $19/month, and I seldom ever > make or receive phone calls, so paying for 'unmetered' just didn't make > sense in my case. That's how it should be. Telefónica pretends we still have POTS, just using fibre instead of copper. We connect old phones to the ONT or router, we pay "normal" fees as always, and the telco denies it is possible to connect a Cisco VoIP phone to the ethernet wire. They do not publish the configuration, but some have reverse engineered it. > > Now, yes, I'm still "paying Verizon", as I'm paying them for FIOS > internet service, so that I 'can' then also use VOIP for phone service. > But I'd be paying for the internet service in any case, so it's not > like I have FIOS /just/ to support the VOIP phone service. > -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-03 12:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10vp207$3igml$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87421 |
On 03/06/2026 11:12, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> Telefónica pretends we still have POTS, just using fibre instead of
> copper. We connect old phones to the ONT or router, we pay "normal" fees
> as always, and the telco denies it is possible to connect a Cisco VoIP
> phone to the ethernet wire. They do not publish the configuration, but
> some have reverse engineered it.
Good old EU centralised services paid for by taxpayers and riddled with
unions.
--
"Strange as it seems, no amount of learning can cure stupidity, and
higher education positively fortifies it."
- Stephen Vizinczey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-03 12:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10vp3dh$3io0e$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87432 |
On 2026-06-03, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 03/06/2026 11:12, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> Telefónica pretends we still have POTS, just using fibre instead of >> copper. We connect old phones to the ONT or router, we pay "normal" >> fees as always, and the telco denies it is possible to connect a >> Cisco VoIP phone to the ethernet wire. They do not publish the >> configuration, but some have reverse engineered it. > > Good old EU centralised services paid for by taxpayers and riddled > with unions. You say that like it's a bad thing. But others will say that's how to do it efficiently, costing less to taxpayers, and leading to a better economy and society. -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-03 14:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10vpb5d$3m0u8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87436 |
On 03/06/2026 12:33, Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2026-06-03, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 03/06/2026 11:12, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> Telefónica pretends we still have POTS, just using fibre instead of >>> copper. We connect old phones to the ONT or router, we pay "normal" >>> fees as always, and the telco denies it is possible to connect a >>> Cisco VoIP phone to the ethernet wire. They do not publish the >>> configuration, but some have reverse engineered it. >> >> Good old EU centralised services paid for by taxpayers and riddled >> with unions. > > You say that like it's a bad thing. > > But others will say that's how to do it efficiently, costing less to > taxpayers, and leading to a better economy and society. > LOL! WE tried that already. UK model is not bad, regulator with teeth and a private company setup. Companies allowed to make money on condition they provide complete services even to loss making customers and wherever possible have no monopoly -- How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think. Adolf Hitler
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-01 13:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10vk089$27ab8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87252 |
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]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-01 22:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <e681fmxjks.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87334 |
On 2026-06-01 15:08, Rich wrote: > c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> On 5/28/26 13:08, rbowman wrote: >>> On Thu, 28 May 2026 03:51:01 -0400, c186282 wrote: >>> >>>> There's a TV commercial for a firm that can track down all your >>>> service subscriptions. People often have a LOT of them, long >>>> forgotten, >>>> but still bleeding money from their accounts. >>> >>> Some month I'll summon up all my patience and try to cancel my AT&T long >>> distance service. I haven't made a land line long distance call in years. >>> Or they may cancel it for me. it's been on ACH for years but the last >>> three months the payment doesn't seem to have gone through. >> >> I have that, AND a long-dead basic DSL account. >> >> But, I'm not gonna tamper. That would be THE excuse >> to snip my landline. Can tell, they're just LOOKING >> for an excuse ... > > They don't need an excuse. They just need the FCC's permission > (already done) and your local state's telephone regulatory agency's > permission (the process is *likely* underway). Once they have that, > you'll be given an ultimatium. Switch to their newfangled "service X" > by date Y. After date Y your old POTS line will go dead, and if you > have not "switched to newfangled Y" or ported your number out to > elsewhere, you'll also lose "rental ownership" of the phone number. > >> They DID send a letter saying they were not going to >> ADD any more hard-lines anymore, but still SURE they >> are just looking for The Excuse to dump 'em all. > > Again, they don't go looking for an excuse. They sweettalk the > regulators into allowing it, and once the regulators say "ok", they > waste no time making sure there is no option for the regulators to > change their minds later. > >> Can't move my old number to wireless anything - wireless uses >> different xxx-0123 numbers always now. > > Not anymore. You can move any number anywhere now. The old "area" > based exchange idea for both "area codes" and for "exchange codes" > (your xxx- above) has been long gone for years. > > New wireless service might be handing out different xxx- prefixes, but > that's because there's no spare numbers left in your current xxx- > prefix. But the number you have now *can* be moved. > It is just administrative. Here in Spain "landline" (VoIP) uses different numeration than mobile. Mobile may actually be not using VoIP yet. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 10:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10vm8d8$2prmk$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87346 |
On 2026-06-01, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-06-01 15:08, Rich wrote: >> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>> On 5/28/26 13:08, rbowman wrote: >>>> On Thu, 28 May 2026 03:51:01 -0400, c186282 wrote: >>>> >>>>> There's a TV commercial for a firm that can track down all your >>>>> service subscriptions. People often have a LOT of them, long >>>>> forgotten, >>>>> but still bleeding money from their accounts. >>>> >>>> Some month I'll summon up all my patience and try to cancel my AT&T long >>>> distance service. I haven't made a land line long distance call in years. >>>> Or they may cancel it for me. it's been on ACH for years but the last >>>> three months the payment doesn't seem to have gone through. >>> >>> I have that, AND a long-dead basic DSL account. >>> >>> But, I'm not gonna tamper. That would be THE excuse >>> to snip my landline. Can tell, they're just LOOKING >>> for an excuse ... >> >> They don't need an excuse. They just need the FCC's permission >> (already done) and your local state's telephone regulatory agency's >> permission (the process is *likely* underway). Once they have that, >> you'll be given an ultimatium. Switch to their newfangled "service X" >> by date Y. After date Y your old POTS line will go dead, and if you >> have not "switched to newfangled Y" or ported your number out to >> elsewhere, you'll also lose "rental ownership" of the phone number. >> >>> They DID send a letter saying they were not going to >>> ADD any more hard-lines anymore, but still SURE they >>> are just looking for The Excuse to dump 'em all. >> >> Again, they don't go looking for an excuse. They sweettalk the >> regulators into allowing it, and once the regulators say "ok", they >> waste no time making sure there is no option for the regulators to >> change their minds later. >> >>> Can't move my old number to wireless anything - wireless uses >>> different xxx-0123 numbers always now. >> >> Not anymore. You can move any number anywhere now. The old "area" >> based exchange idea for both "area codes" and for "exchange codes" >> (your xxx- above) has been long gone for years. >> >> New wireless service might be handing out different xxx- prefixes, but >> that's because there's no spare numbers left in your current xxx- >> prefix. But the number you have now *can* be moved. >> > > > It is just administrative. Here in Spain "landline" (VoIP) uses > different numeration than mobile. Do you get a landline prefix or a "VoIP" prefix, or are both the same in Spain? Across one of the borders, Portugal has or had a different (3) prefix for VoIP services, while landlines use 2. <https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BAmeros_de_telefone_em_Portugal#Plano_Nacional_de_Numera%C3%A7%C3%A3o> > Mobile may actually be not using VoIP yet. (With GSM, wasn't the "generation" a criterion for that? Was it 4G that started requiring a VoIP-like approach?) -- Nuno Silva
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 13:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vtq2fmxa11.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87362 |
On 2026-06-02 11:39, Nuno Silva wrote: > On 2026-06-01, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> On 2026-06-01 15:08, Rich wrote: >>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>>> On 5/28/26 13:08, rbowman wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 28 May 2026 03:51:01 -0400, c186282 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> There's a TV commercial for a firm that can track down all your >>>>>> service subscriptions. People often have a LOT of them, long >>>>>> forgotten, >>>>>> but still bleeding money from their accounts. >>>>> >>>>> Some month I'll summon up all my patience and try to cancel my AT&T long >>>>> distance service. I haven't made a land line long distance call in years. >>>>> Or they may cancel it for me. it's been on ACH for years but the last >>>>> three months the payment doesn't seem to have gone through. >>>> >>>> I have that, AND a long-dead basic DSL account. >>>> >>>> But, I'm not gonna tamper. That would be THE excuse >>>> to snip my landline. Can tell, they're just LOOKING >>>> for an excuse ... >>> >>> They don't need an excuse. They just need the FCC's permission >>> (already done) and your local state's telephone regulatory agency's >>> permission (the process is *likely* underway). Once they have that, >>> you'll be given an ultimatium. Switch to their newfangled "service X" >>> by date Y. After date Y your old POTS line will go dead, and if you >>> have not "switched to newfangled Y" or ported your number out to >>> elsewhere, you'll also lose "rental ownership" of the phone number. >>> >>>> They DID send a letter saying they were not going to >>>> ADD any more hard-lines anymore, but still SURE they >>>> are just looking for The Excuse to dump 'em all. >>> >>> Again, they don't go looking for an excuse. They sweettalk the >>> regulators into allowing it, and once the regulators say "ok", they >>> waste no time making sure there is no option for the regulators to >>> change their minds later. >>> >>>> Can't move my old number to wireless anything - wireless uses >>>> different xxx-0123 numbers always now. >>> >>> Not anymore. You can move any number anywhere now. The old "area" >>> based exchange idea for both "area codes" and for "exchange codes" >>> (your xxx- above) has been long gone for years. >>> >>> New wireless service might be handing out different xxx- prefixes, but >>> that's because there's no spare numbers left in your current xxx- >>> prefix. But the number you have now *can* be moved. >>> >> >> >> It is just administrative. Here in Spain "landline" (VoIP) uses >> different numeration than mobile. > > Do you get a landline prefix or a "VoIP" prefix, or are both the same in > Spain? A traditional landline number. There is a VoIP system behind it, but the identifiers and the configs are not published. Not accessible except by reverse engineering. It is even possible that a 10.*.*.* network is involved (I'm not sure). > Across one of the borders, Portugal has or had a different (3) > prefix for VoIP services, while landlines use 2. > > <https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BAmeros_de_telefone_em_Portugal#Plano_Nacional_de_Numera%C3%A7%C3%A3o> > >> Mobile may actually be not using VoIP yet. > > (With GSM, wasn't the "generation" a criterion for that? Was it 4G that > started requiring a VoIP-like approach?) I don't know, I'm no longer working in that field :-) -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-03 02:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10vo56p$3b3aj$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87362 |
Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 2026-06-01, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> On 2026-06-01 15:08, Rich wrote: >>> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>>> On 5/28/26 13:08, rbowman wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 28 May 2026 03:51:01 -0400, c186282 wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> There's a TV commercial for a firm that can track down all your >>>>>> service subscriptions. People often have a LOT of them, long >>>>>> forgotten, >>>>>> but still bleeding money from their accounts. >>>>> >>>>> Some month I'll summon up all my patience and try to cancel my AT&T long >>>>> distance service. I haven't made a land line long distance call in years. >>>>> Or they may cancel it for me. it's been on ACH for years but the last >>>>> three months the payment doesn't seem to have gone through. >>>> >>>> I have that, AND a long-dead basic DSL account. >>>> >>>> But, I'm not gonna tamper. That would be THE excuse >>>> to snip my landline. Can tell, they're just LOOKING >>>> for an excuse ... >>> >>> They don't need an excuse. They just need the FCC's permission >>> (already done) and your local state's telephone regulatory agency's >>> permission (the process is *likely* underway). Once they have that, >>> you'll be given an ultimatium. Switch to their newfangled "service X" >>> by date Y. After date Y your old POTS line will go dead, and if you >>> have not "switched to newfangled Y" or ported your number out to >>> elsewhere, you'll also lose "rental ownership" of the phone number. >>> >>>> They DID send a letter saying they were not going to >>>> ADD any more hard-lines anymore, but still SURE they >>>> are just looking for The Excuse to dump 'em all. >>> >>> Again, they don't go looking for an excuse. They sweettalk the >>> regulators into allowing it, and once the regulators say "ok", they >>> waste no time making sure there is no option for the regulators to >>> change their minds later. >>> >>>> Can't move my old number to wireless anything - wireless uses >>>> different xxx-0123 numbers always now. >>> >>> Not anymore. You can move any number anywhere now. The old "area" >>> based exchange idea for both "area codes" and for "exchange codes" >>> (your xxx- above) has been long gone for years. >>> >>> New wireless service might be handing out different xxx- prefixes, but >>> that's because there's no spare numbers left in your current xxx- >>> prefix. But the number you have now *can* be moved. >>> >> >> >> It is just administrative. Here in Spain "landline" (VoIP) uses >> different numeration than mobile. > > Do you get a landline prefix or a "VoIP" prefix, or are both the same in > Spain? Across one of the borders, Portugal has or had a different (3) > prefix for VoIP services, while landlines use 2. > > <https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BAmeros_de_telefone_em_Portugal#Plano_Nacional_de_Numera%C3%A7%C3%A3o> > >> Mobile may actually be not using VoIP yet. > > (With GSM, wasn't the "generation" a criterion for that? Was it 4G that > started requiring a VoIP-like approach?) 4G started the transition to cell phones being /effectively/ VOIP. It is called VoLTE (Voice over LTE). 4G no longer has a dedicated synchronous TDM "phone channel" like 3G wireless had. Voice calls are handled simply as more network data being sent over the LTE data channel. Notably, at least in the US, they pulled the same stunt they previously pulled for long distance. The call's being handled by sending a network data stream over LTE, but was still being charged as if your handset were reserving one of a limited number of TDM slots on the antenna pole your handset is linked to currently. That is until competition compelled all of them to offer 'unlimited minutes to everywhere for one low price'. 5G is purely VOIP (it may not be TCP/IP VOIP the actual protocol, but it is "digitzed voice over a data network") over the 5G LTE network for the voice calls. They just droped the VoLTE label as it was no longer "new fangled" at the 5G stage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-26 22:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <TJycnTERSJjsxIv3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87165 |
On 5/26/26 18:09, Rich wrote: > c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> On 5/26/26 02:46, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> So, it is fibre now. If fibre is not feasible to your location (like >>> isolated places), they they put you on some radio for the same price. >> >> Fiber is STILL a direct-connect tech ... and >> the providers are AGAINST that. Requires HUMAN >> workers. >> >> They want 100% wireless - no matter how shitty. > > In the US, the ulterior motive actually appears to be the fact that > POTS service is regulated (price regulated and availability > requirements regulated) whereas the "new fangled" fiber services are > free of those pesky requirements for requesting price increases or > being required to provide a particular availably (uptime) level. That IS a factor. > They don't mind at all sending a tech. out to drag in fiber, given that > each one moves them from "regulated service" to "unregulated service". Soon the fiber/repeaters will degrade and they'll have fired all the humans who knew how to deal with it. "Comcast" will probably have cable/Fiber for awhile yet, but their price has become extreme. Can't even get that anymore, tiny bushes became huge trees over time and it'd cost me thousands to clear a path for a cable-tv wire now. When my old one - literally on the ground since Covid days - goes, well, dish.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-27 14:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10v6qg9$2ot19$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87170 |
On 27/05/2026 03:39, c186282 wrote: > Soon the fiber/repeaters will degrade and they'll > 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]
Page 8 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web