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

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

Redundancy/Survival

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

Contents

  Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 02:21 -0400
    Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 08:46 +0200
      Re: Redundancy/Survival Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-05-26 09:49 +0200
        Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 04:47 -0400
        Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 11:25 +0200
        Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-26 09:53 +0000
      Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 04:38 -0400
        Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-26 11:35 +0200
        Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-26 22:09 +0000
          Re: Redundancy/Survival John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-05-26 16:17 -0700
            Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-27 00:02 +0000
              Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-27 00:11 -0400
                Re: Redundancy/Survival Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2026-05-28 10:32 +0200
              Re: Redundancy/Survival Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-27 08:41 +0100
                Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-27 11:04 +0200
                  Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 03:31 -0400
                    Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-28 09:18 +0100
                    Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-28 13:42 +0200
                      Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-28 15:01 +0100
                      Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 21:34 -0400
                        Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 11:07 +0100
                        Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-29 12:55 +0200
                          Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 12:14 +0100
                            Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-29 13:36 +0200
                              Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 13:26 +0100
                                Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-29 19:36 +0200
                            Re: Redundancy/Survival Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 17:24 +0100
                              Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-29 19:37 +0200
                              Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 19:36 +0100
                                Re: Redundancy/Survival Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-29 22:34 +0100
                          Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-30 04:29 -0400
                            Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-30 13:09 +0200
                              Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-30 23:29 -0400
                                Re: Redundancy/Survival InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-05-31 21:45 -0400
                                  Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:15 +0200
                    Re: Redundancy/Survival 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 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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:26 +0100
                      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 Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 13:08 +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 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 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 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#87276

On 29/05/2026 02:34, c186282 wrote:
>    The service - albeit a  bit speed limited - should
>    be available to ALL, all of the time. Some emergency
>    devices at minimum, but you may as well enable voice
>    at the same time.
> 
>    In short, never throw away a good hardwire network.
Indeed. carry on until the cost of repairing it exceeds the cost of 
installing fiber

-- 
  “A leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader, 
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say, 
“We did this ourselves.”

― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

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

#87277

On 2026-05-29 03:34, c186282 wrote:
> On 5/28/26 07:42, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2026-05-28 09:31, c186282 wrote:
>>> On 5/27/26 05:04, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2026-05-27 09:41, Nuno Silva wrote:
>>>>> On 2026-05-27, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2026-05-26, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 May 2026 22:09:35 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well *that* explains a lot :/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yup.  Our telco (Telus) had a really big push to convert everyone
>>>>>> to fiber.  Now we too can enjoy loss of dial tone when the power
>>>>>> goes out.
>>>>>
>>>>> POTS has in a way always seemed a sensible option to still have
>>>>> everywhere for certain emergencies, in fact perhaps households should
>>>>> always have access to such a line even without contracting any 
>>>>> service,
>>>>> for stuff like 112.
>>>>>
>>>>> But that also requires that the handset is fully capable of operating
>>>>> only with the line power.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Will not happen. Live on...
>>>
>>>
>>>    Um ... works NOW - why not always ?
>>>
>>>    Kind of agree with the sentiment that copper should
>>>    always be at hand for 'emergency' communications at
>>>    a minimum. Towers die, cell contracts expire, copper
>>>    keeps on going.
>>>
>>
>> The exchanges need maintenance. Would you have those monsters active 
>> all the time just to give signal to a few customers? That's too 
>> expensive. Exchanges will eventually all get garbaged, and perhaps a 
>> converter will be connected to the few that refused to migrate to 
>> fibre, so they are fooled into thinking they still have copper.
> 
>    The service - albeit a  bit speed limited - should
>    be available to ALL, all of the time. Some emergency
>    devices at minimum, but you may as well enable voice
>    at the same time.
> 
>    In short, never throw away a good hardwire network.
> 
>    Some assert that fiber will (barely) need maint ...
>    don't think that's entirely true. All sorts of odd
>    things can happen to physical media. And yes if
>    you're branching fiber to everyone there WILL need
>    to be a lot of splitters, boosters/repeaters. The
>    latter require electricity. No copper, no electric.
>    A 50w PV+Batt thingie every few blocks with
>    industrial ratings - MORE expensive than a few
>    existing copper wires.
> 
>    Fiber is better for SPEED ... but I don't think it
>    is nearly as ROBUST or SIMPLE as some here are
>    selling it.
> 
>    For comm corps ... they HATE employing humans. They
>    imagine they can get rid of 99.9% of the physical
>    service people by going to fiber or (crappier) 5G.
>    No more lift vans ! No more labor unions ! Yay !!!
> 
>    In short their motives are selfishness, cheapness,
>    not "better customer experience". Just don't think
>    they're gonna get what they imagine. Leave the fiber &
>    support equip out in the elements for a decade+ and
>    see what happens.
> 
>    Maybe a year ago, AT&T showed up, opened a manhole
>    near my place, and proceeded to pull out a gigantic
>    copper cable. The guy said 4000 pairs ... about six
>    inches around heavily clad. Apparently it used to
>    service the entire south end of the county. They
>    were cutting and pulling - about half a mile's worth
>    at a time. Trucks with HUGE spools attached.
> 
>    Thing is, it was perfectly good cable, not bothering
>    anybody. At best they can sell the copper, make a
>    quick little buck. But now all that cable COULD have
>    done is GONE. I just see it as 4000 lost options.
> 


Keeping that cable working is expensive.


-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#87278

On 29/05/2026 11:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> Fiber is better for SPEED ... but I don't think it
>     is nearly as ROBUST or SIMPLE as some here are
>     selling it.

That's because you don't have it.
Some of us do.

Its actually *simpler* at the crude level of installation and comissioning


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

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

#87279

On 2026-05-29 13:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 29/05/2026 11:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> Fiber is better for SPEED ... but I don't think it
>>     is nearly as ROBUST or SIMPLE as some here are
>>     selling it.
> 

Please use correct attributions. That phrase was written by c186282, not 
me.

> That's because you don't have it.
> Some of us do.
> 
> Its actually *simpler* at the crude level of installation and comissioning

I have fibre since some years, I don't remember how many. I have seen 
two failure modes: the router hangs or malfunctions, needing a reboot 
(also happens with copper), or when we had an energy zero.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#87280

On 29/05/2026 12:36, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-05-29 13:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 29/05/2026 11:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> Fiber is better for SPEED ... but I don't think it
>>>     is nearly as ROBUST or SIMPLE as some here are
>>>     selling it.
>>
> 
> Please use correct attributions. That phrase was written by c186282, not 
> me.
> 
>> That's because you don't have it.
>> Some of us do.
>>
>> Its actually *simpler* at the crude level of installation and 
>> comissioning
> 
> I have fibre since some years, I don't remember how many. I have seen 
> two failure modes: the router hangs or malfunctions, needing a reboot 
> (also happens with copper), or when we had an energy zero.
> 
neither of those are specific to fiber


-- 
Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the 
gospel of envy.

Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

Winston Churchill

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

#87282

On 2026-05-29 14:26, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 29/05/2026 12:36, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2026-05-29 13:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 29/05/2026 11:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> Fiber is better for SPEED ... but I don't think it
>>>>     is nearly as ROBUST or SIMPLE as some here are
>>>>     selling it.
>>>
>>
>> Please use correct attributions. That phrase was written by c186282, 
>> not me.
>>
>>> That's because you don't have it.
>>> Some of us do.
>>>
>>> Its actually *simpler* at the crude level of installation and 
>>> comissioning
>>
>> I have fibre since some years, I don't remember how many. I have seen 
>> two failure modes: the router hangs or malfunctions, needing a reboot 
>> (also happens with copper), or when we had an energy zero.
>>
> neither of those are specific to fiber

Not for computer access. But for voice access, they would still work 
with those failures-

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#87281

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
> On 29/05/2026 11:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> Fiber is better for SPEED ... but I don't think it
>>     is nearly as ROBUST or SIMPLE as some here are
>>     selling it.
>
> That's because you don't have it.
> Some of us do.
>
> Its actually *simpler* at the crude level of installation and comissioning

Does it get nicked as much as copper?

(My suspicion is that it doesn’t, but I’m not in any of the relevant
businesses...)

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

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

#87283

On 2026-05-29 18:24, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> On 29/05/2026 11:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> Fiber is better for SPEED ... but I don't think it
>>>      is nearly as ROBUST or SIMPLE as some here are
>>>      selling it.
>>
>> That's because you don't have it.
>> Some of us do.
>>
>> Its actually *simpler* at the crude level of installation and comissioning
> 
> Does it get nicked as much as copper?
> 
> (My suspicion is that it doesn’t, but I’m not in any of the relevant
> businesses...)
> 

No, it doesn't, except when the thieves think it is copper and pull it 
out. Then they find out and throw the cable away on the spot.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#87284

On 29/05/2026 17:24, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> On 29/05/2026 11:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> Fiber is better for SPEED ... but I don't think it
>>>      is nearly as ROBUST or SIMPLE as some here are
>>>      selling it.
>>
>> That's because you don't have it.
>> Some of us do.
>>
>> Its actually *simpler* at the crude level of installation and comissioning
> 
> Does it get nicked as much as copper?
> 
Try selling scrap glass...

> (My suspicion is that it doesn’t, but I’m not in any of the relevant
> businesses...)
> 
It is simply cheaper to run once the initial infra structuire is in place
-- 
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the 
urge to rule it.”
– H. L. Mencken

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

#87285

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
> On 29/05/2026 17:24, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>> On 29/05/2026 11:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> Fiber is better for SPEED ... but I don't think it
>>>>      is nearly as ROBUST or SIMPLE as some here are
>>>>      selling it.
>>>
>>> That's because you don't have it.
>>> Some of us do.
>>>
>>> Its actually *simpler* at the crude level of installation and comissioning
>> Does it get nicked as much as copper?
> 
> Try selling scrap glass...

l-)

>> (My suspicion is that it doesn’t, but I’m not in any of the relevant
>> businesses...)
>> 
> It is simply cheaper to run once the initial infra structuire is in place

Sounds like a win for everyone (except copper thieves).

-- 
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

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

#87289

On 5/29/26 06:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-05-29 03:34, c186282 wrote:
>> On 5/28/26 07:42, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2026-05-28 09:31, c186282 wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/26 05:04, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>> On 2026-05-27 09:41, Nuno Silva wrote:
>>>>>> On 2026-05-27, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2026-05-26, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 May 2026 22:09:35 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well *that* explains a lot :/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yup.  Our telco (Telus) had a really big push to convert everyone
>>>>>>> to fiber.  Now we too can enjoy loss of dial tone when the power
>>>>>>> goes out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> POTS has in a way always seemed a sensible option to still have
>>>>>> everywhere for certain emergencies, in fact perhaps households should
>>>>>> always have access to such a line even without contracting any 
>>>>>> service,
>>>>>> for stuff like 112.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that also requires that the handset is fully capable of operating
>>>>>> only with the line power.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Will not happen. Live on...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    Um ... works NOW - why not always ?
>>>>
>>>>    Kind of agree with the sentiment that copper should
>>>>    always be at hand for 'emergency' communications at
>>>>    a minimum. Towers die, cell contracts expire, copper
>>>>    keeps on going.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The exchanges need maintenance. Would you have those monsters active 
>>> all the time just to give signal to a few customers? That's too 
>>> expensive. Exchanges will eventually all get garbaged, and perhaps a 
>>> converter will be connected to the few that refused to migrate to 
>>> fibre, so they are fooled into thinking they still have copper.
>>
>>    The service - albeit a  bit speed limited - should
>>    be available to ALL, all of the time. Some emergency
>>    devices at minimum, but you may as well enable voice
>>    at the same time.
>>
>>    In short, never throw away a good hardwire network.
>>
>>    Some assert that fiber will (barely) need maint ...
>>    don't think that's entirely true. All sorts of odd
>>    things can happen to physical media. And yes if
>>    you're branching fiber to everyone there WILL need
>>    to be a lot of splitters, boosters/repeaters. The
>>    latter require electricity. No copper, no electric.
>>    A 50w PV+Batt thingie every few blocks with
>>    industrial ratings - MORE expensive than a few
>>    existing copper wires.
>>
>>    Fiber is better for SPEED ... but I don't think it
>>    is nearly as ROBUST or SIMPLE as some here are
>>    selling it.
>>
>>    For comm corps ... they HATE employing humans. They
>>    imagine they can get rid of 99.9% of the physical
>>    service people by going to fiber or (crappier) 5G.
>>    No more lift vans ! No more labor unions ! Yay !!!
>>
>>    In short their motives are selfishness, cheapness,
>>    not "better customer experience". Just don't think
>>    they're gonna get what they imagine. Leave the fiber &
>>    support equip out in the elements for a decade+ and
>>    see what happens.
>>
>>    Maybe a year ago, AT&T showed up, opened a manhole
>>    near my place, and proceeded to pull out a gigantic
>>    copper cable. The guy said 4000 pairs ... about six
>>    inches around heavily clad. Apparently it used to
>>    service the entire south end of the county. They
>>    were cutting and pulling - about half a mile's worth
>>    at a time. Trucks with HUGE spools attached.
>>
>>    Thing is, it was perfectly good cable, not bothering
>>    anybody. At best they can sell the copper, make a
>>    quick little buck. But now all that cable COULD have
>>    done is GONE. I just see it as 4000 lost options.
>>
> 
> 
> Keeping that cable working is expensive.

   I don't disagree.

   However SOMETIMES it's worth mandating
   a backwards-compatible system be kept
   alive and working.

   Having experienced major service problems,
   I'm gonna say that keeping the copper going
   for at least another 10 years IS good sense.

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

#87290

On 2026-05-30 10:29, c186282 wrote:
> On 5/29/26 06:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2026-05-29 03:34, c186282 wrote:
>>> On 5/28/26 07:42, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2026-05-28 09:31, c186282 wrote:
>>>>> On 5/27/26 05:04, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>> On 2026-05-27 09:41, Nuno Silva wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2026-05-27, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2026-05-26, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 May 2026 22:09:35 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>>> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well *that* explains a lot :/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yup.  Our telco (Telus) had a really big push to convert everyone
>>>>>>>> to fiber.  Now we too can enjoy loss of dial tone when the power
>>>>>>>> goes out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> POTS has in a way always seemed a sensible option to still have
>>>>>>> everywhere for certain emergencies, in fact perhaps households 
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>> always have access to such a line even without contracting any 
>>>>>>> service,
>>>>>>> for stuff like 112.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that also requires that the handset is fully capable of 
>>>>>>> operating
>>>>>>> only with the line power.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Will not happen. Live on...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    Um ... works NOW - why not always ?
>>>>>
>>>>>    Kind of agree with the sentiment that copper should
>>>>>    always be at hand for 'emergency' communications at
>>>>>    a minimum. Towers die, cell contracts expire, copper
>>>>>    keeps on going.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The exchanges need maintenance. Would you have those monsters active 
>>>> all the time just to give signal to a few customers? That's too 
>>>> expensive. Exchanges will eventually all get garbaged, and perhaps a 
>>>> converter will be connected to the few that refused to migrate to 
>>>> fibre, so they are fooled into thinking they still have copper.
>>>
>>>    The service - albeit a  bit speed limited - should
>>>    be available to ALL, all of the time. Some emergency
>>>    devices at minimum, but you may as well enable voice
>>>    at the same time.
>>>
>>>    In short, never throw away a good hardwire network.
>>>
>>>    Some assert that fiber will (barely) need maint ...
>>>    don't think that's entirely true. All sorts of odd
>>>    things can happen to physical media. And yes if
>>>    you're branching fiber to everyone there WILL need
>>>    to be a lot of splitters, boosters/repeaters. The
>>>    latter require electricity. No copper, no electric.
>>>    A 50w PV+Batt thingie every few blocks with
>>>    industrial ratings - MORE expensive than a few
>>>    existing copper wires.
>>>
>>>    Fiber is better for SPEED ... but I don't think it
>>>    is nearly as ROBUST or SIMPLE as some here are
>>>    selling it.
>>>
>>>    For comm corps ... they HATE employing humans. They
>>>    imagine they can get rid of 99.9% of the physical
>>>    service people by going to fiber or (crappier) 5G.
>>>    No more lift vans ! No more labor unions ! Yay !!!
>>>
>>>    In short their motives are selfishness, cheapness,
>>>    not "better customer experience". Just don't think
>>>    they're gonna get what they imagine. Leave the fiber &
>>>    support equip out in the elements for a decade+ and
>>>    see what happens.
>>>
>>>    Maybe a year ago, AT&T showed up, opened a manhole
>>>    near my place, and proceeded to pull out a gigantic
>>>    copper cable. The guy said 4000 pairs ... about six
>>>    inches around heavily clad. Apparently it used to
>>>    service the entire south end of the county. They
>>>    were cutting and pulling - about half a mile's worth
>>>    at a time. Trucks with HUGE spools attached.
>>>
>>>    Thing is, it was perfectly good cable, not bothering
>>>    anybody. At best they can sell the copper, make a
>>>    quick little buck. But now all that cable COULD have
>>>    done is GONE. I just see it as 4000 lost options.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Keeping that cable working is expensive.
> 
>    I don't disagree.
> 
>    However SOMETIMES it's worth mandating
>    a backwards-compatible system be kept
>    alive and working.
> 
>    Having experienced major service problems,
>    I'm gonna say that keeping the copper going
>    for at least another 10 years IS good sense.
> 

Not going to happen.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#87296

On 5/30/26 07:09, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2026-05-30 10:29, c186282 wrote:
>> On 5/29/26 06:55, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2026-05-29 03:34, c186282 wrote:
>>>> On 5/28/26 07:42, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>> On 2026-05-28 09:31, c186282 wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/27/26 05:04, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2026-05-27 09:41, Nuno Silva wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2026-05-27, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2026-05-26, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 26 May 2026 22:09:35 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>>>>>>> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well *that* explains a lot :/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yup.  Our telco (Telus) had a really big push to convert everyone
>>>>>>>>> to fiber.  Now we too can enjoy loss of dial tone when the power
>>>>>>>>> goes out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> POTS has in a way always seemed a sensible option to still have
>>>>>>>> everywhere for certain emergencies, in fact perhaps households 
>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>> always have access to such a line even without contracting any 
>>>>>>>> service,
>>>>>>>> for stuff like 112.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But that also requires that the handset is fully capable of 
>>>>>>>> operating
>>>>>>>> only with the line power.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Will not happen. Live on...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Um ... works NOW - why not always ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    Kind of agree with the sentiment that copper should
>>>>>>    always be at hand for 'emergency' communications at
>>>>>>    a minimum. Towers die, cell contracts expire, copper
>>>>>>    keeps on going.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The exchanges need maintenance. Would you have those monsters 
>>>>> active all the time just to give signal to a few customers? That's 
>>>>> too expensive. Exchanges will eventually all get garbaged, and 
>>>>> perhaps a converter will be connected to the few that refused to 
>>>>> migrate to fibre, so they are fooled into thinking they still have 
>>>>> copper.
>>>>
>>>>    The service - albeit a  bit speed limited - should
>>>>    be available to ALL, all of the time. Some emergency
>>>>    devices at minimum, but you may as well enable voice
>>>>    at the same time.
>>>>
>>>>    In short, never throw away a good hardwire network.
>>>>
>>>>    Some assert that fiber will (barely) need maint ...
>>>>    don't think that's entirely true. All sorts of odd
>>>>    things can happen to physical media. And yes if
>>>>    you're branching fiber to everyone there WILL need
>>>>    to be a lot of splitters, boosters/repeaters. The
>>>>    latter require electricity. No copper, no electric.
>>>>    A 50w PV+Batt thingie every few blocks with
>>>>    industrial ratings - MORE expensive than a few
>>>>    existing copper wires.
>>>>
>>>>    Fiber is better for SPEED ... but I don't think it
>>>>    is nearly as ROBUST or SIMPLE as some here are
>>>>    selling it.
>>>>
>>>>    For comm corps ... they HATE employing humans. They
>>>>    imagine they can get rid of 99.9% of the physical
>>>>    service people by going to fiber or (crappier) 5G.
>>>>    No more lift vans ! No more labor unions ! Yay !!!
>>>>
>>>>    In short their motives are selfishness, cheapness,
>>>>    not "better customer experience". Just don't think
>>>>    they're gonna get what they imagine. Leave the fiber &
>>>>    support equip out in the elements for a decade+ and
>>>>    see what happens.
>>>>
>>>>    Maybe a year ago, AT&T showed up, opened a manhole
>>>>    near my place, and proceeded to pull out a gigantic
>>>>    copper cable. The guy said 4000 pairs ... about six
>>>>    inches around heavily clad. Apparently it used to
>>>>    service the entire south end of the county. They
>>>>    were cutting and pulling - about half a mile's worth
>>>>    at a time. Trucks with HUGE spools attached.
>>>>
>>>>    Thing is, it was perfectly good cable, not bothering
>>>>    anybody. At best they can sell the copper, make a
>>>>    quick little buck. But now all that cable COULD have
>>>>    done is GONE. I just see it as 4000 lost options.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Keeping that cable working is expensive.
>>
>>    I don't disagree.
>>
>>    However SOMETIMES it's worth mandating
>>    a backwards-compatible system be kept
>>    alive and working.
>>
>>    Having experienced major service problems,
>>    I'm gonna say that keeping the copper going
>>    for at least another 10 years IS good sense.
>>
> 
> Not going to happen.

   We shall see.

   In USA there *are* some federal regs. Corps
   trying to get AROUND those might be held
   guilty/culpable.

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

#87316

On 5/30/2026 11:29 PM, c186282 wrote:
> On 5/30/26 07:09, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2026-05-30 10:29, c186282 wrote:
>>>
>>>    I don't disagree.
>>>
>>>    However SOMETIMES it's worth mandating
>>>    a backwards-compatible system be kept
>>>    alive and working.
>>>
>>>    Having experienced major service problems,
>>>    I'm gonna say that keeping the copper going
>>>    for at least another 10 years IS good sense.
>>>
>>
>> Not going to happen.
> 
>    We shall see.
> 
>    In USA there *are* some federal regs. Corps
>    trying to get AROUND those might be held
>    guilty/culpable.
> 

I hate to burst your bubble, but the FCC here in the US is a captured 
agency. They've been catering to the industry for years now, and 
especially under the current administration, have only been seeking to 
heavily deregulate and boost industry profits, consumers be damned.

I mentioned earlier that back in March, the FCC released an order where 
they declared they would preempt state requirements that had the effect 
of requiring companies to retain traditional service, as part of the 
FCC's agenda of advancing the "IP transition" and sunsetting POTS.

This is playing out in California right now. AT&T sued the California 
Public Utilities Commission and AG last week and asked the FCC to 
preempt California's requirements that all consumers have access to 
basic voice service. 200,000 customers just got notices that AT&T 
intends to disconnect their service. Separately, there is a 
constitutional amendment being quietly considered to bar the CPUC from 
regulating telecom. AT&T is sure trying to cover its bases...

It's a timely discussion. If you want to keep POTS around, submit 
comments/opposition to the FCC on the relevant dockets until June 22, 
see https://savelandlines.org/

If you are waiting for some "regulator" to come and save POTS service 
for everyone, you are sadly mistaken. But you can still submit comments, 
make calls, etc. to try to fight back against AT&T and the FCC.

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

#87329

On 2026-06-01 03:45, InterLinked wrote:
> On 5/30/2026 11:29 PM, c186282 wrote:
>> On 5/30/26 07:09, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2026-05-30 10:29, c186282 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>    I don't disagree.
>>>>
>>>>    However SOMETIMES it's worth mandating
>>>>    a backwards-compatible system be kept
>>>>    alive and working.
>>>>
>>>>    Having experienced major service problems,
>>>>    I'm gonna say that keeping the copper going
>>>>    for at least another 10 years IS good sense.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not going to happen.
>>
>>    We shall see.
>>
>>    In USA there *are* some federal regs. Corps
>>    trying to get AROUND those might be held
>>    guilty/culpable.
>>
> 
> I hate to burst your bubble, but the FCC here in the US is a captured 
> agency. They've been catering to the industry for years now, and 
> especially under the current administration, have only been seeking to 
> heavily deregulate and boost industry profits, consumers be damned.
> 
> I mentioned earlier that back in March, the FCC released an order where 
> they declared they would preempt state requirements that had the effect 
> of requiring companies to retain traditional service, as part of the 
> FCC's agenda of advancing the "IP transition" and sunsetting POTS.
> 
> This is playing out in California right now. AT&T sued the California 
> Public Utilities Commission and AG last week and asked the FCC to 
> preempt California's requirements that all consumers have access to 
> basic voice service. 200,000 customers just got notices that AT&T 
> intends to disconnect their service. Separately, there is a 
> constitutional amendment being quietly considered to bar the CPUC from 
> regulating telecom. AT&T is sure trying to cover its bases...
> 
> It's a timely discussion. If you want to keep POTS around, submit 
> comments/opposition to the FCC on the relevant dockets until June 22, 
> see https://savelandlines.org/
> 
> If you are waiting for some "regulator" to come and save POTS service 
> for everyone, you are sadly mistaken. But you can still submit comments, 
> make calls, etc. to try to fight back against AT&T and the FCC.

In Spain, the official minimum internet service the Spanish government 
guarantees as part of the Universal Telecommunications Service is 10 
Mbps 
(<https://avance.digital.gob.es/es-es/servicios/informeuniversal/paginas/index.aspx?utm_source=chatgpt.com>). 
The obligation is currently provided through Movistar as the designated 
operator. What they don't specify is the technology. POTS is out of the 
picture.

And they are considering increasing the minimum to 100 Mbps.

-- 
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

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

#87255

c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>   Kind of agree with the sentiment that copper should always be at 
>   hand for 'emergency' communications at a minimum.  Towers die, cell 
>   contracts expire, copper keeps on going.

The legacy copper phones only "kept on going" because POTS (copper) 
phone service was a highly regulated utility with requirements for 
upkeep and maintence so that it /would/ just keep on going.

Without that upkeep, it eventually falls into disrepair and stops 
working just like the rest.

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

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

In areas with significant winter ice storms and above ground copper 
then ice storms would routinely take out the copper phones until the 
wires were repaired.  This routinely happened in very rural areas that 
also got ice storms.

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

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

#87260

On 5/29/26 00:30, Rich wrote:
> c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>>    Kind of agree with the sentiment that copper should always be at
>>    hand for 'emergency' communications at a minimum.  Towers die, cell
>>    contracts expire, copper keeps on going.
> 
> The legacy copper phones only "kept on going" because POTS (copper)
> phone service was a highly regulated utility with requirements for
> upkeep and maintence so that it /would/ just keep on going.
> 
> Without that upkeep, it eventually falls into disrepair and stops
> working just like the rest.


  Well ... KEEP the requirements !

  The USA sill keeps a few old battleships and
  bombers and such alive - Just In Case. Still
  supports the HAMs, Just In Case.

  The THEME of this thread is Tech Redundancy -
  and that means one or MORE back-layers you
  can employ - Just In Case.

  IMHO, those who do NOT have "Just In Case"
  hardwired in are DOOMED if the shit hits
  the fan. Does starving/rotting to death
  sound good to you ???

  The AARL handbook even includes Spark-Gap
  transmitters/receivers - 1899 tech. Ya
  NEVER KNOW when things might suddenly
  get SO SHITTY that such methods are All
  That's Left.

  Frankly I see every copper pair as a Potential
  Asset. "They" shouldn't be ALLOWED to pull it
  all out.


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

   I've EXPERIENCED tower networks Going DOWN ... they
   have maybe three days worth of power backup. Then
   it's 1826 again.

   But copper KEEPS WORKING. Simple and sure.

> But fail it did.  If the lines were above ground then tree branches (or
> automobiles) would take out the lines.  If the lines were underground
> then water infiltration into the conduits would result in noise or
> nothing working.  I had this one myself on my pair once.  Line that had
> been nice and quiet (and worked well for DSL) suddenly sounded like
> someone was scraping a turntable needle over a vinyl record constantly.
> Reported it to Verizon, they took some time to fix, but I eventually
> learned the cause was an underground wiring vault a couple miles away
> had flooded.
> 
> In areas with significant winter ice storms and above ground copper
> then ice storms would routinely take out the copper phones until the
> wires were repaired.  This routinely happened in very rural areas that
> also got ice storms.
> 
> But your individual experience dependend upon what happened with your
> specific pair.  If you were lucky and no falling trees, drunk drivers,
> or ice storms happened to pull down your copper pair, and no leaky
> underground conduits soaked it, then to you it appeared to be
> impervious to failure.  Reality from the other size (the phone company)
> viewpoint is that something, somewhere, was always failing and needing
> repair.

   I do understand the basics here ... copper CAN be a
   pain in the ass sometimes.

   However it's EASY to fix, nice LOW tech.

   Don't throw it away.

   I've been in Total Disaster zones TWICE in my life.
   ALL infrastructure TRASHED. No communications. However
   the COPPER either stays up, or comes BACK up first.
   The lower-tech aspect is a POSITIVE.

   Until we have like 'sub-space radio' as a USB dongle,
   KEEP most of the copper.

   The theme of this thread is "REDUNDANCY" - and it's
   an IMPORTANT thing. Very important. Should add
   "alt.survival" to the groups .....

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

#87267

On Fri, 29 May 2026 01:34:37 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>   The AARL handbook even includes Spark-Gap transmitters/receivers -
>   1899 tech. Ya NEVER KNOW when things might suddenly get SO SHITTY that
>   such methods are All That's Left.

My code needs a little brush up. It never came easy but I did manage to 
get good enough to get the Advanced ticket. I still am Advanced. It's 
grandfathered in although it doesn't exist anymore.

Extra is more administrative than tech so I never bothered to get it even 
after they dropped code.

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

#87301

On 5/29/26 02:36, rbowman wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 2026 01:34:37 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>>    The AARL handbook even includes Spark-Gap transmitters/receivers -
>>    1899 tech. Ya NEVER KNOW when things might suddenly get SO SHITTY that
>>    such methods are All That's Left.
> 
> My code needs a little brush up. It never came easy but I did manage to
> get good enough to get the Advanced ticket. I still am Advanced. It's
> grandfathered in although it doesn't exist anymore.
> 
> Extra is more administrative than tech so I never bothered to get it even
> after they dropped code.

   DID used to know Code ... but that was a LONG time ago.

   But, if NECESSARY, could RE-learn it.

   A fuzzily-tuned spark gap transmitter might
   be good fun  :-)

   Ah, DID finally get ONE (of four) PiCams to
   work. Couldn't get three to even acknowledge
   their existence. The working one - PART of
   the problem was trying to do "rpi-still"
   over a VNC connection ... it didn't like that,
   can't entirely cope with a virtual screen.
   Using the '-n' param on several of those utils
   DOES let me store pix and vids ... you just
   don't see it 'live'.

   The OTHER prob ... almost all the good utils are
   tuned to work with Web and/or IP cams. The PiCams
   are neither. It IS possible to do a udp or tcp
   h-264 stream ... but it's not rtsp or mjpeg and
   haven't been able yet to get even VLC to pick
   up the stream.

   So, future ... USB cams. Gotta find connectors
   that aren't huge though.

   My otherwise useless P-0 ... it IS still tiny
   and I can fit it into a weatherproof box I have
   that would NOT quite fit the full PI profile.

   Oh, the Pi4 I finally got the cam to work with,
   DAMN that CPU chip can get HOT, even WITH a
   heat-sink attached ! By luck I had a spare
   little FAN .....

   My Dremel Tool JUST managed to carve-out a space
   in the plastic case for the cam ribbon cable, and
   then DIED - motor not coupled to the output shaft.
   Must be some plastic/rubber LoveJoy or something.
   Never had one of those die before. Oh well, straight
   into the trash (KEPT the cord though).

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

#87302

>On Sun, 31 May 2026 00:38:01 -0400, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>On 5/29/26 02:36, rbowman wrote:
>
>   DID used to know Code ... but that was a LONG time ago.
>
>   But, if NECESSARY, could RE-learn it.
>
>   A fuzzily-tuned spark gap transmitter might
>   be good fun  :-)
>
>   Ah, DID finally get ONE (of four) PiCams to
>   work. Couldn't get three to even acknowledge
>   their existence. The working one - PART of
>   the problem was trying to do "rpi-still"
>   over a VNC connection ... it didn't like that,
>   can't entirely cope with a virtual screen.
>[...trimmed...]
>   into the trash (KEPT the cord though).
> [...trimmed...]

If you want to keep using the CSI Pi camera, I would avoid trying to make the
raw h264 stream look like a webcam and instead put a thin server in front of it.

A safe first check is whether the current stack sees the camera at all:

    libcamera-hello --list-cameras

For a quick LAN stream, something like this on the Pi is usually simpler than
fighting VNC preview windows:

    libcamera-vid -t 0 --inline --listen -o tcp://0.0.0.0:8888

Then on another box, tell VLC what it is receiving rather than letting it guess:

    vlc tcp/h264://PI_ADDRESS:8888

If you need RTSP/MJPEG because other software expects it, put mediamtx,
GStreamer, or ffmpeg between libcamera and the clients. That also keeps the Pi
Zero usable, since the camera capture stays local and the network side can be
made as dumb as possible.

Also worth checking: the older raspistill/raspivid tools and the newer
libcamera/rpicam tools are not interchangeable on recent Raspberry Pi OS images.
Mixing examples from the two eras causes a lot of false trails.

-- 
TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null>
"I survived the great rm -rf / rehearsal and all I got was this .signature."

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

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

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

csiph-web