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 121 — 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 The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-02 11:11 +0100
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-05-29 04:30 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-29 01:34 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-05-29 06:36 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-31 00:38 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-05-31 05:09 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-05-31 03:10 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-05-31 07:14 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-01 00:49 -0400
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-01 04:57 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 03:20 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 19:45 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-06-01 18:30 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-06-01 22:27 +0200
Re: Redundancy/Survival TheLastSysop <thelastsysop@dev.null> - 2026-06-02 10:49 +0000
Re: Redundancy/Survival 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 Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-02 10:39 +0100
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 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-29 11:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10vboh4$2nqd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87249 |
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]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-29 12:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iu7oemx7df.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87249 |
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]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-29 12:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10vbsfj$3scp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87277 |
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]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-29 13:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <kbaoemx9in.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87278 |
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]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-29 13:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10vc0lp$4rb0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87279 |
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]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-29 19:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <0dvoemx0b8.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87280 |
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]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-29 17:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <wwv1peutc8o.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #87278 |
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]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-29 19:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <bgvoemx0b8.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87281 |
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]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-29 19:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10vcmav$bi03$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87281 |
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]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-29 22:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <wwvfr39c33a.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> |
| In reply to | #87284 |
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]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-30 04:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <0S-dnUUrDdBSAof3nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87277 |
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]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-30 13:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <k4tqemxd22.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87289 |
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]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-30 23:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mRWdnSI6O9i6Nob3nZ2dnZfqnPSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87290 |
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]
| From | InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-31 21:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10vio7r$1u2gt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87296 |
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]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-01 12:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <am20fmxjf6.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87316 |
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]
| From | InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-01 18:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10vl2gl$2i8ll$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #87329 |
On 6/1/2026 6:15 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-06-01 03:45, InterLinked wrote: >> If you are waiting for some "regulator" to come and save POTS service >> for everyone, you are sadly mistaken. But you can still submit >> comments, make calls, etc. to try to fight back against AT&T and the FCC. > > In Spain, the official minimum internet service the Spanish government > guarantees as part of the Universal Telecommunications Service is 10 > Mbps > (<https://avance.digital.gob.es/es-es/servicios/informeuniversal/paginas/index.aspx?utm_source=chatgpt.com>). > The obligation is currently provided through Movistar as the designated > operator. What they don't specify is the technology. POTS is out of the > picture. > > And they are considering increasing the minimum to 100 Mbps. Except that's the wrong priority. We'll guarantee everyone have 100 Mbps, but not the ability to call 911 (or whatever your local emergency number is)? I'm not opposed to standards for broadband, but 100 Mbps is quite excessive for a minimum and less important than having working phone service, which traditionally has been a regulated utility.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 01:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <wBqTR.130851$Grwb.13821@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #87348 |
On 2026-06-01, InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote: > On 6/1/2026 6:15 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> And they are considering increasing the minimum to 100 Mbps. > > Except that's the wrong priority. We'll guarantee everyone have 100 > Mbps, but not the ability to call 911 (or whatever your local emergency > number is)? Don't laugh. Here in Canada, former prime minister Justin Trudeau announced an obsession with bringing high-speed Internet to the frozen north - while over 50 communities still lacked potable water. Priorities... -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 03:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <GAadnbNrlPdf4oP3nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87351 |
On 6/1/26 21:46, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-06-01, InterLinked <usenet@phreaknet.org> wrote: > >> On 6/1/2026 6:15 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> >>> And they are considering increasing the minimum to 100 Mbps. >> >> Except that's the wrong priority. We'll guarantee everyone have 100 >> Mbps, but not the ability to call 911 (or whatever your local emergency >> number is)? > > Don't laugh. Here in Canada, former prime minister Justin Trudeau > announced an obsession with bringing high-speed Internet to the > frozen north - while over 50 communities still lacked potable water. > Priorities... I believe it ! Net For All is kinda pointless if you're dying from lack of good water/food/heat. But it SOUNDS great - and that's all politicians care about. Image over substance Every Time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 10:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <p4g2fmx7bq.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #87348 |
On 2026-06-02 00:53, InterLinked wrote: > On 6/1/2026 6:15 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2026-06-01 03:45, InterLinked wrote: >>> 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. > > Except that's the wrong priority. We'll guarantee everyone have 100 > Mbps, but not the ability to call 911 (or whatever your local emergency > number is)? Why do you think they don't guarantee that? It is a different chapter. > > I'm not opposed to standards for broadband, but 100 Mbps is quite > excessive for a minimum and less important than having working phone > service, which traditionally has been a regulated utility. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-06-02 02:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <fnidnaxJ3ful4oP3nZ2dnZfqnPadnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #87329 |
On 6/1/26 06:15, Carlos E.R. wrote: > 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. Hmmm ... had to switch to 5G internet for several annoying reasons. The old Gen2 DSL was actually better. RARELY get 10mbps - I'm too far from the towers, metal roof, reinforced concrete. Tried every place in the house. HAVE seen 'bursts' to 30mbps ... but those only last a few minutes. 5 to 8 mbps is more 'typical'. Less is often seen too alas. NOT sure how Spain is gonna guarentee this fast net to all. LOTS more (subsidized) towers operating at a de-facto loss ??? Typical 'socialist' thinking. I've looked into StarLink. Price isn't TOO bad, but the allowed daily/monthly data consumption is too low for my needs. I often download Linux/etc distros for eval or use - typically 1-4 gigs these days. Many distros can 'update' with a gig more more. Did that several times the last month. The only good bit is that if there's a hurricane with tornadoes and tidal surge and Satanic coup those WON'T get at the satellites. MAY buy basic pkg as a 'safety' so I could do simple mail/banking/ordering.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web