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 118 — 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 "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-02 10:16 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-02 02:58 -0400
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 InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> - 2026-06-01 19:00 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-29 02:17 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 03:50 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-01 01:07 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:47 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 17:36 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 22:33 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:26 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 17:31 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 22:49 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-05-30 09:09 +1000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-30 13:17 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-05-31 07:33 +1000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-31 00:14 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-31 12:09 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-01 00:51 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:28 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-31 12:58 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-27 20:51 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 14:02 -0700
Re: Redundancy/Survival not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2026-05-28 08:54 +1000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-05-28 05:04 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 03:54 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-05-28 09:15 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 12:29 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-28 13:45 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-05-29 02:50 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-29 01:17 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 06:48 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-30 04:25 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-05-30 13:20 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-05-30 14:16 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-05-30 04:00 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-26 23:41 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-27 14:09 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 03:51 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-28 17:08 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-28 22:14 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 04:41 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-29 01:53 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 06:32 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 13:19 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 22:52 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 13:08 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 22:55 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival 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 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 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-29 01:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <UYicndOFJtzCvIT3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87254 |
On 5/28/26 22:50, Robert Riches wrote: > On 2026-05-28, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> >> I still have a few NON-digital phone sets. >> Plug in - they Just Work. > > Also, if you need private point-to-point phone capability > (without ringer), two old-style phone sets and a 9V battery > suffice. Just connect everything in series. > > About 30 years ago, I did that with two very old rotary phones > and a 9V battery between the bedrooms of my two daughters. They > decided knuckles knocking on the wall between the rooms would be > their signal to pick up the phone. When either phone set (or > both) hung up, battery current was close enough to zero that the > battery would last a very long time. Hmmm ... can you render a simplified schematic ? Sounds like a basic "intercom" system, but might have wider uses. A mere PI or Arduino might expand the horizon considerably. If the Big Providers won't run their copper network then maybe we mere proles can find uses for what's still connected ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-29 06:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7sr5bFu3pfU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87258 |
On Fri, 29 May 2026 01:17:02 -0400, c186282 wrote: > Sounds like a basic "intercom" system, but might have wider uses. A > mere PI or Arduino might expand the horizon considerably. My uncle had a setup where he used the house AC wiring for an intercom. It was homegrown and may or may not have been particularly legal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-line_communication
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-30 04:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4aGcnZBN6dWLAof3nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87270 |
On 5/29/26 02:48, rbowman wrote: > On Fri, 29 May 2026 01:17:02 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> Sounds like a basic "intercom" system, but might have wider uses. A >> mere PI or Arduino might expand the horizon considerably. > > My uncle had a setup where he used the house AC wiring for an intercom. It > was homegrown and may or may not have been particularly legal. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-line_communication Hmm ... you CAN run a much higher freq over the 50/60hz power wires. I think "X-10" works that way. "Legal" ... ummm ... depends. However the high freq isn't likely to make it past yer big pole transformer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-30 13:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sotqemx854.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87288 |
On 2026-05-30 10:25, c186282 wrote: > On 5/29/26 02:48, rbowman wrote: >> On Fri, 29 May 2026 01:17:02 -0400, c186282 wrote: >> >>> Sounds like a basic "intercom" system, but might have wider uses. A >>> mere PI or Arduino might expand the horizon considerably. >> >> My uncle had a setup where he used the house AC wiring for an >> intercom. It >> was homegrown and may or may not have been particularly legal. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-line_communication > > Hmm ... you CAN run a much higher freq over > the 50/60hz power wires. I think "X-10" works > that way. > > "Legal" ... ummm ... depends. However the high > freq isn't likely to make it past yer big pole > transformer. Here they use data transmission over the AC network to read the meters remotely. I suppose they add something to bypass transformers, which here are big and not sitting on poles. Probably the transformers are connected to internet for monitoring and control. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-30 14:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn111ls9h.ope.spamtrap42@one.localnet> |
| In reply to | #87288 |
On 2026-05-30, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > On 5/29/26 02:48, rbowman wrote: >> On Fri, 29 May 2026 01:17:02 -0400, c186282 wrote: >> >>> Sounds like a basic "intercom" system, but might have wider uses. A >>> mere PI or Arduino might expand the horizon considerably. >> >> My uncle had a setup where he used the house AC wiring for an intercom. It >> was homegrown and may or may not have been particularly legal. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-line_communication > > Hmm ... you CAN run a much higher freq over > the 50/60hz power wires. I think "X-10" works > that way. > > "Legal" ... ummm ... depends. However the high > freq isn't likely to make it past yer big pole > transformer. Yes, X-10 uses/used power-line communication. So does/did Insteon. IIRC, the carrier frequencies were 125kHz and 130kHz. Side note: Anyone who used Insteon's servers as part of their home or business automation (via their "router" if I remember the term correctly), had their Insteon equipment bricked when the bean counters and vultures moved in to "preserve company assets" in the bankruptcy circus. Those of us who used and/or still use the serial or USB-to-serial modem and local compute resources were not impacted. -- Robert Riches spamtrap42@jacob21819.net (Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-30 04:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn111ko6h.q66.spamtrap42@one.localnet> |
| In reply to | #87258 |
On 2026-05-29, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > On 5/28/26 22:50, Robert Riches wrote: >> On 2026-05-28, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >>> >>> I still have a few NON-digital phone sets. >>> Plug in - they Just Work. >> >> Also, if you need private point-to-point phone capability >> (without ringer), two old-style phone sets and a 9V battery >> suffice. Just connect everything in series. >> >> About 30 years ago, I did that with two very old rotary phones >> and a 9V battery between the bedrooms of my two daughters. They >> decided knuckles knocking on the wall between the rooms would be >> their signal to pick up the phone. When either phone set (or >> both) hung up, battery current was close enough to zero that the >> battery would last a very long time. > > Hmmm ... can you render a simplified schematic ? > > Sounds like a basic "intercom" system, but might > have wider uses. A mere PI or Arduino might expand > the horizon considerably. > > If the Big Providers won't run their copper network > then maybe we mere proles can find uses for what's > still connected ? A simplified schematic? I don't have a picture handy or a convenient way to draw one. However, the circuit is simple enough that the topology is limited by the solution space. I can describe it in a lot fewer than a thousand words: 1. Draw a circle in pencil so you can erase it later. 2. Put the phones and battery at points about 120 degrees apart on the circle. 3. Draw the terminals on or near the circle. There should be two terminals per element. 4. Add three wires, one connecting the closest terminals of each pair of elements. 5. Erase the circle, but leave the rest. At least with old carbon-mike-type phone sets, the circuit will operate independent of polarity, as long as the three elements form a ring (no pun intended). -- Robert Riches spamtrap42@jacob21819.net (Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-26 23:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <TJycnTMRSJib9Yv3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87167 |
On 5/26/26 19:17, John Ames 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 :/ Yep. Indeed I think there are SERVICE regs where they HAVE to fix yer broken copper within some rather narrow time window. The providers do NOT like that. Probably a Cold War reg, post-nuke response to get everyone connected again. Oh well, there's always StarLink ... the main phone people didn't expect there to be an alt outside their tight grip. Phones run from about $250 USD on up - Amazon sells a fair selection. Also something kinda like a StarLink "pager" that'll do texts and get e-mails. What IS getting generally annoying is that the bulk of my monthly expense were mostly "utilities" - power and water, basic landline, plus pTax. NOW it's becoming where 'communications' expenses are exceeding even that. There really does seem to be some Vast Vampire Konspiracy at work here. And industry lobbyists will make SURE nothing's done about it. pTax ... also now ridiculous ... orgs stuffed to overflowing with 'administrative' types, fewer and fewer in-the-field DO-ers. Takes a year+ to re-pave a few miles of old road - and 'govt' doesn't even DO it, contracts-out. Waiting for the $25 "sub-space" quantum comm link you can plug into anything :-) Maybe it'll use a Pi-0 under the hood ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-27 14:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10v6qdl$2ot19$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87174 |
On 27/05/2026 04:41, c186282 wrote: > What IS getting generally annoying is that the bulk > of my monthly expense were mostly "utilities" - power > and water, basic landline, plus pTax. NOW it's becoming > where 'communications' expenses are exceeding even that. > There really does seem to be some Vast Vampire Konspiracy > at work here. It is the basis of the Democratic Dilemma. How to have enough people who can afford to buy your shit products without actually employing them and giving them the money in the first place. Or letting them have the freedom to employ themselves. -- "When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics." Josef Stalin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-28 03:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ec6dnYGgEcuDaYr3nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87194 |
On 5/27/26 09:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 27/05/2026 04:41, c186282 wrote: >> What IS getting generally annoying is that the bulk >> of my monthly expense were mostly "utilities" - power >> and water, basic landline, plus pTax. NOW it's becoming >> where 'communications' expenses are exceeding even that. >> There really does seem to be some Vast Vampire Konspiracy >> at work here. > > It is the basis of the Democratic Dilemma. How to have enough people who > can afford to buy your shit products without actually employing them and > giving them the money in the first place. Or letting them have the > freedom to employ themselves. At some point, probably soon, that idea is going to collapse. It'll be a big shake-up. There's a TV commercial for a firm that can track down all your service subscriptions. People often have a LOT of them, long forgotten, but still bleeding money from their accounts. Frankly, I won't WANT to give any corp access to such broad-sweep info on me. Vlad or Xi will be plugged-in. Don't HAVE many 'subscriptions' at all, and LOOK for the charges every month. But most DON'T look anymore ... then wonder why they're going broke. When 'AI' grabs their jobs ... well ...... interesting times ..........
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-28 17:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7rb4iFo1qlU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87219 |
On Thu, 28 May 2026 03:51:01 -0400, c186282 wrote: > There's a TV commercial for a firm that can track down all your > service subscriptions. People often have a LOT of them, long > forgotten, > but still bleeding money from their accounts. Some month I'll summon up all my patience and try to cancel my AT&T long distance service. I haven't made a land line long distance call in years. Or they may cancel it for me. it's been on ACH for years but the last three months the payment doesn't seem to have gone through.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-28 22:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <97OcnXMzhIQIa4X3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87237 |
On 5/28/26 13:08, rbowman wrote: > On Thu, 28 May 2026 03:51:01 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> There's a TV commercial for a firm that can track down all your >> service subscriptions. People often have a LOT of them, long >> forgotten, >> but still bleeding money from their accounts. > > Some month I'll summon up all my patience and try to cancel my AT&T long > distance service. I haven't made a land line long distance call in years. > Or they may cancel it for me. it's been on ACH for years but the last > three months the payment doesn't seem to have gone through. I have that, AND a long-dead basic DSL account. But, I'm not gonna tamper. That would be THE excuse to snip my landline. Can tell, they're just LOOKING for an excuse ... BTW, the old DSL had superior performance to my New And Improved 5G router ...... but one day, unannounced, they just killed the DSL. Rebooted the router and it was all just GONE. "Sorry, we have discontinued ..." They DID send a letter saying they were not going to ADD any more hard-lines anymore, but still SURE they are just looking for The Excuse to dump 'em all. An alt comm route, alt media/tech, still seems VERY much a 'redundancy'/survival issue. Can't move my old number to wireless anything - wireless uses different xxx-0123 numbers always now. Banks, brokers, insurers, docs, govt, LOTS of people, still call the old number. Good old ANSWER MACHINE to sort out the assholes. And my cell MIGHT crap out ... NOT good for 2FA accounts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-29 04:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7sjnrFu3pfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87252 |
On Thu, 28 May 2026 22:14:29 -0400, c186282 wrote: > But, I'm not gonna tamper. That would be THE excuse to snip my > landline. Can tell, they're just LOOKING for an excuse ... There's that too. CenturyLink is the landline provider and I can see them saying I need a long distance provider. AT&T is less than $15/mo so it isn't a huge deal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-29 01:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <97OcnW0zhIRttIT3nZ2dnZfqnPQAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87256 |
On 5/29/26 00:41, rbowman wrote: > On Thu, 28 May 2026 22:14:29 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> But, I'm not gonna tamper. That would be THE excuse to snip my >> landline. Can tell, they're just LOOKING for an excuse ... > > There's that too. CenturyLink is the landline provider and I can see them > saying I need a long distance provider. AT&T is less than $15/mo so it > isn't a huge deal. My AT&T is *very* expensive now ... they ARE trying to scare everybody away from their copper lines. For OUR good ? NO ! Well, I can afford it ... I'm gonna put up with their extortion. MAY be some lawyers who'll get some of that back later on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-29 06:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n7sq8kFu3pfU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #87261 |
On Fri, 29 May 2026 01:53:35 -0400, c186282 wrote: > My AT&T is *very* expensive now ... they ARE trying to scare > everybody away from their copper lines. CenturyLink doesn't seem to be trying to scare people away but the cost has risen with more taxes and so forth. Usually I have 4G on the T-Mobile net but sometimes I need to move the phone around. So far the copper connection works when I pick it up.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-01 13:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10vk0s8$27ab8$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87256 |
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: > On Thu, 28 May 2026 22:14:29 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> But, I'm not gonna tamper. That would be THE excuse to snip my >> landline. Can tell, they're just LOOKING for an excuse ... > > There's that too. CenturyLink is the landline provider and I can see them > saying I need a long distance provider. AT&T is less than $15/mo so it > isn't a huge deal. The two are no longer inseperable as they were when Ma-Bell was a single monopoly. You can (or at least you very well should be able to) have local service from CenturyLink without long distance from AT&T. I never bought long distance service for my POTS line, it was local only. And the only issue that ever occurred is I could not make direct-dialed long distance calls. For the once in five years I ever needed to do so I solved the problem using one of those old "calling cards" services. And Verizon never had any issues with no LD service. The number is now connected to a VOIP provider, so I get "anywhere in the USA" calling for the exact same price as every other call (the very concept of 'long distance' eroded decades ago, not that the 'long distance' carriers ever bothered to inform anyone of that fact).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-01 22:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <n081fmxjks.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87335 |
On 2026-06-01 15:19, Rich wrote: > rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 28 May 2026 22:14:29 -0400, c186282 wrote: >> >>> But, I'm not gonna tamper. That would be THE excuse to snip my >>> landline. Can tell, they're just LOOKING for an excuse ... >> >> There's that too. CenturyLink is the landline provider and I can see them >> saying I need a long distance provider. AT&T is less than $15/mo so it >> isn't a huge deal. > > The two are no longer inseperable as they were when Ma-Bell was a > single monopoly. > > You can (or at least you very well should be able to) have local > service from CenturyLink without long distance from AT&T. > > I never bought long distance service for my POTS line, it was local > only. And the only issue that ever occurred is I could not make > direct-dialed long distance calls. For the once in five years I ever > needed to do so I solved the problem using one of those old "calling > cards" services. > > And Verizon never had any issues with no LD service. > > The number is now connected to a VOIP provider, so I get "anywhere in > the USA" calling for the exact same price as every other call (the very > concept of 'long distance' eroded decades ago, not that the 'long > distance' carriers ever bothered to inform anyone of that fact). No, mine keeps charging long distance fares :-( Well, I can call anyone on Spain for free, but not outside. And they keep secret the VoIP configuration. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-01 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 | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-26 22:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <TJycnTERSJjsxIv3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87165 |
On 5/26/26 18:09, Rich wrote: > c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: >> On 5/26/26 02:46, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> So, it is fibre now. If fibre is not feasible to your location (like >>> isolated places), they they put you on some radio for the same price. >> >> Fiber is STILL a direct-connect tech ... and >> the providers are AGAINST that. Requires HUMAN >> workers. >> >> They want 100% wireless - no matter how shitty. > > In the US, the ulterior motive actually appears to be the fact that > POTS service is regulated (price regulated and availability > requirements regulated) whereas the "new fangled" fiber services are > free of those pesky requirements for requesting price increases or > being required to provide a particular availably (uptime) level. That IS a factor. > They don't mind at all sending a tech. out to drag in fiber, given that > each one moves them from "regulated service" to "unregulated service". Soon the fiber/repeaters will degrade and they'll have fired all the humans who knew how to deal with it. "Comcast" will probably have cable/Fiber for awhile yet, but their price has become extreme. Can't even get that anymore, tiny bushes became huge trees over time and it'd cost me thousands to clear a path for a cable-tv wire now. When my old one - literally on the ground since Covid days - goes, well, dish.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-27 14:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10v6qg9$2ot19$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87170 |
On 27/05/2026 03:39, c186282 wrote: > Soon the fiber/repeaters will degrade and they'll > have fired all the humans who knew how to deal > with it. Hardly. Fibre does not degrade. Not like copper -- How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think. Adolf Hitler
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web