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 205 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 02:21 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 08:46 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-05-26 09:49 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 04:47 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 11:25 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-26 09:53 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 04:38 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 11:35 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-26 22:09 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 16:17 -0700
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-27 00:02 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-27 00:11 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-05-28 10:32 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-27 08:41 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-27 11:04 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 03:31 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-28 09:18 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-28 13:42 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-28 15:01 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 21:34 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 11:07 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-29 12:55 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 12:14 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-29 13:36 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 13:26 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-29 19:36 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 17:24 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-29 19:37 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 19:36 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 22:34 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-30 04:29 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-30 13:09 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-30 23:29 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-05-31 21:45 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:15 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-01 18:53 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-02 01:46 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-02 03:01 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:12 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 10:16 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:09 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 21:26 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:48 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 14:35 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 17:25 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 19:24 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 20:04 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 22:25 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-02 02:58 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-02 11:11 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-02 22:15 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-02 22:32 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 02:33 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:57 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 14:40 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-29 04:30 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-29 01:34 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 06:36 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-31 00:38 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-05-31 05:09 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-31 03:10 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-05-31 07:14 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-01 00:49 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-01 04:57 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 03:20 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 19:45 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 18:30 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 22:27 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 10:49 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 13:16 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 00:00 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 14:43 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:35 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:21 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 18:25 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 21:36 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:06 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:32 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:43 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 13:05 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:14 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:31 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 14:43 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 19:28 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 20:10 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-03 18:00 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 22:27 +0200
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 rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-03 18:58 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 14:46 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-01 19:00 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-06-02 17:44 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 17:54 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-02 16:57 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 21:02 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:41 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:13 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:47 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:49 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:10 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-02 22:29 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:52 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-03 18:00 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:49 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 11:56 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-03 18:00 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-29 02:17 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 03:50 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-01 01:07 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:47 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 17:36 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 22:33 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:25 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 02:12 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:03 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:06 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:02 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-03 18:00 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 22:31 +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 Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:37 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-05-30 09:09 +1000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-30 13:17 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-05-31 07:33 +1000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-31 00:14 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-31 12:09 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-01 00:51 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:28 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-31 12:58 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-27 20:51 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 14:02 -0700
Re: Redundancy/Survival not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-05-28 08:54 +1000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-28 05:04 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 03:54 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-05-28 09:15 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:29 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-28 13:45 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-05-29 02:50 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-29 01:17 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 06:48 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-30 04:25 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-30 13:20 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-05-30 14:16 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-05-30 04:00 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 23:41 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-27 14:09 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 03:51 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-28 17:08 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 22:14 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 04:41 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-29 01:53 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 06:32 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 13:19 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 22:52 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:46 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-03 00:27 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 03:26 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 03:03 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:12 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:08 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:33 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-03 14:45 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 13:08 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 22:55 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-02 10:39 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 13:21 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-03 02:57 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 22:39 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-27 14:10 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-05-28 09:05 +1000
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-28 08:19 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 03:52 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-28 09:20 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 20:34 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-05-28 21:07 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 13:40 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-01 19:12 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 10:28 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-02 12:15 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 16:19 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:30 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:29 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-02 16:49 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-03 12:18 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-06-02 17:38 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 15:48 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 00:39 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 17:55 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 16:03 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-02 12:22 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 16:36 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 18:39 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-03 00:48 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 01:21 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-29 02:08 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 06:41 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 13:23 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 23:00 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-05-26 09:44 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 04:45 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 11:38 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Worst Case" <fritz@spamexpire-202605.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2026-05-26 17:21 +0200
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
| 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]
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-28 09:05 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <6a17789e@news.ausics.net> |
| In reply to | #87195 |
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 27/05/2026 03:39, c186282 wrote: >> Soon the fiber/repeaters will degrade and they'll >> have fired all the humans who knew how to deal >> with it. > > Hardly. Fibre does not degrade. Not like copper Still here in Australia one person I know with "fibre to the premises" (as opposed to re-using the old copper phone lines for connection from the street to the house) had to have the line fixed within about a year of installation due to a faulty connection that evidently "degraded" somehow over time. Likely a faulty installation, the box they attached to the house wasn't even screwed on very convincingly, but there'll be a lot of that in this contry and probably elsewhere. -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-28 08:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10v8qa7$39l9v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87207 |
On 28/05/2026 00:05, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: >> On 27/05/2026 03:39, c186282 wrote: >>> Soon the fiber/repeaters will degrade and they'll >>> have fired all the humans who knew how to deal >>> with it. >> >> Hardly. Fibre does not degrade. Not like copper > > Still here in Australia one person I know with "fibre to the > premises" (as opposed to re-using the old copper phone lines for > connection from the street to the house) had to have the line fixed > within about a year of installation due to a faulty connection that > evidently "degraded" somehow over time. > > Likely a faulty installation, the box they attached to the house > wasn't even screwed on very convincingly, but there'll be a lot of > that in this contry and probably elsewhere. > Nothing in that shows that the fibre degraded. Only a connection -- Of what good are dead warriors? … Warriors are those who desire battle more than peace. Those who seek battle despite peace. Those who thump their spears on the ground and talk of honor. Those who leap high the battle dance and dream of glory … The good of dead warriors, Mother, is that they are dead. Sheri S Tepper: The Awakeners.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-28 03:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ec6dnYCgEcvmaYr3nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87195 |
On 5/27/26 09:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 27/05/2026 03:39, c186282 wrote: >> Soon the fiber/repeaters will degrade and they'll >> 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]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-28 09:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10v8tsh$3ajmv$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87220 |
On 28/05/2026 08:52, c186282 wrote: > On 5/27/26 09:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 27/05/2026 03:39, c186282 wrote: >>> Soon the fiber/repeaters will degrade and they'll >>> 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]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-28 20:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <UYicndWFJtyzQoX3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87225 |
On 5/28/26 04:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 28/05/2026 08:52, c186282 wrote: >> On 5/27/26 09:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 27/05/2026 03:39, c186282 wrote: >>>> Soon the fiber/repeaters will degrade and they'll >>>> 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]
| From | InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-28 21:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10vaorr$3r8c4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87244 |
On 5/28/2026 8:34 PM, c186282 wrote: > On 5/28/26 04:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >> On 28/05/2026 08:52, c186282 wrote: >>> On 5/27/26 09:10, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>>> On 27/05/2026 03:39, c186282 wrote: >>>>> Soon the fiber/repeaters will degrade and they'll >>>>> 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]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-01 13:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10vk256$27ab8$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87245 |
InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote: > though for some reason I can only negotiate 33.6k. 33.6 is as high as you can negioate using digital to audio and audio to digital signal transmission (i.e., standard "modem" working) due to the underlying digitizing rate for all phone calls by the carriers. > so something about the fiber arrangement seems to be interfering with > V.90/V.92 negotiation.) Obtaining speeds higher than 33.6 requires: 1) copper between the modem and the dmarc in the exchange 2) the dmark in the switch being one that can have the analog to digital converter at the end of the copper turned off. The higher speeds work by both ends driving the copper as if it were a digital baseband network link (i.e., somewhat akin to driving ethernet signaling over the line). But, with any analog to digital converters in between mean you can't get better than 33.6. And all the "fiber to your home, with a little box that drives your in house copper as if it were still connected to POTS" means there is a small analog to digital converter in the way (and no one decided to offer the ability to switch it off and drive the copper as digital baseband).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-01 19:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10vl3kr$2ii0i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87337 |
On 6/1/2026 9:40 AM, Rich wrote: > InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote: >> though for some reason I can only negotiate 33.6k. > > 33.6 is as high as you can negioate using digital to audio and audio to > digital signal transmission (i.e., standard "modem" working) due to the > underlying digitizing rate for all phone calls by the carriers. > >> so something about the fiber arrangement seems to be interfering with >> V.90/V.92 negotiation.) > > Obtaining speeds higher than 33.6 requires: > 1) copper between the modem and the dmarc in the exchange > 2) the dmark in the switch being one that can have the analog to > digital converter at the end of the copper turned off. > > The higher speeds work by both ends driving the copper as if it were a > digital baseband network link (i.e., somewhat akin to driving ethernet > signaling over the line). > > But, with any analog to digital converters in between mean you can't > get better than 33.6. And all the "fiber to your home, with a little > box that drives your in house copper as if it were still connected to > POTS" means there is a small analog to digital converter in the way > (and no one decided to offer the ability to switch it off and drive the > copper as digital baseband). Yes, I'm aware of the 33.6 ceiling with conversions. I don't think I mentioned it before, but I can get 36000 (not 33600) when calling certain modems. I've gotten it a few times when calling the dial-up ISP here in the US (there is really only one, no matter which reseller you use), but usually just 33600. That demonstrates I can get speeds > 33.6k, but usually the negotiation fails (I can hear it too, it's not happy trying to negotiate V.90/V.92). My point was that copper POTS customers can get speeds in the 40s/50s calling the same service, no problem at all, but I'm not able to do that with my service being delivered over fiber. Dial-up Internet speeds are actually *hampered* by fiber... how ironic is that? So from my (consumer) perspective, fiber is a loser. It's inferior quality and connectivity and it doesn't work in a power outage. There's already coax in my area for CATV so the fiber was redundant to begin with for broadband. They crippled our phone service in favor of another expensive[1] and unregulated service... but it's great for the telco! Now the burden - and cost - of powering phone service is on the consumer. The only scenario in which fiber wins in my book would be where your copper line is fed out of a SLC-96 that doesn't have a reliable power supply in emergencies, in which case if you happen to have enough backup power yourself, fiber would be better since it's passive (GPON). [1] Oh, and even though my service is arguably inferior to copper, I don't pay any less than copper customers; still all the high taxes/fees associated with regulated service (which I have intentionally). So it's not copper that's expensive per se, it's regulated phone service regardless of technology.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web