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

Groups > uk.telecom > #39422 > unrolled thread

Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film?

Back to article view | Back to uk.telecom

Contents

  Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-02 13:58 +0100
    Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-02 17:30 +0200
      Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-03 13:02 +0100
        Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-03 13:10 +0100
        Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-03 16:05 +0200
    Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-03 13:01 +0100
      Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-03 22:09 +0100
        Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-04 09:19 +0200
          Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-04 09:13 +0100
            Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-05-04 14:31 +0100
              Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-04 15:42 +0100
                Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-05 10:59 +0100
                  Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2026-05-05 23:23 +0100
                    Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> - 2026-05-06 09:35 +0100
                      Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2026-05-06 17:48 +0100
                        Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-06 17:51 +0100
                        Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> - 2026-05-07 06:57 +0100
                        Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> - 2026-05-07 11:26 +0000
                          Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2026-05-07 14:07 +0100
                            Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-07 16:47 +0100
                    Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-05-06 16:34 +0100
                      Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2026-05-06 17:44 +0100
                      Re: Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film? David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-06 19:13 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#39422 — Advert for BT disguised as news, or public information film?

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/finance/news/nationwide-switch-digital-landlines-less-155331532.html

Landlines are being upgraded she says, there will be no extra cost, and
it's as easy as unplugging your phone and plugging it in again. BT will
guide you, and support you. Keep your existing phone number. It's all
easy. (My Openreach subcontractor ran away while the router was still
booting itself).

If you are not with BT of course, brace yourself, you are in for a rocky
ride, and you may end up with no phone line for at least a week, maybe
forever.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#39423

On 02/05/2026 14:58, Richmond wrote:
> https://uk.news.yahoo.com/finance/news/nationwide-switch-digital-landlines-less-155331532.html
> 
> Landlines are being upgraded she says, there will be no extra cost, and
> it's as easy as unplugging your phone and plugging it in again. BT will
> guide you, and support you. Keep your existing phone number. It's all
> easy. (My Openreach subcontractor ran away while the router was still
> booting itself).
> 
> If you are not with BT of course, brace yourself, you are in for a rocky
> ride, and you may end up with no phone line for at least a week, maybe
> forever.

I don't think the supplier matters. BT are as capable, indeed some may 
say more capable of fubar-ing any upgrade, downgrade or service change.

Dave

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

#39425

David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> writes:

> I don't think the supplier matters. BT are as capable, indeed some may
> say more capable of fubar-ing any upgrade, downgrade or service
> change.

I am puzzled by the no extra cost bit, as for me there was the extra
cost of fibre. Maybe if you have no broadband there is no extra cost.

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

#39426

On 03/05/2026 13:02, Richmond wrote:
> I am puzzled by the no extra cost bit, as for me there was the extra
> cost of fibre. Maybe if you have no broadband there is no extra cost.

Many do not have fibre, I have landline broadband (I have lost track of 
types but VDSL?)

So I just plugged the telephone into the back of the router which did 
not cost me anything.

I thought I read that they are providing an equivalent to those without 
an existing broadband connection.

My EE router also falls back to 4G if the landline broadband is lost.

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

#39431

On 03/05/2026 14:02, Richmond wrote:
> David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> writes:
> 
>> I don't think the supplier matters. BT are as capable, indeed some may
>> say more capable of fubar-ing any upgrade, downgrade or service
>> change.
> 
> I am puzzled by the no extra cost bit, as for me there was the extra
> cost of fibre. Maybe if you have no broadband there is no extra cost.
> 
There is no extra cost to the phone service, which is rich as I believe 
it should be substantially cheaper. You might pay more for your 
internet, but there are low-cost low bandwidth fibre options so you 
could keep the total cost the same.


Also if you just order a phone with no internet and fibre is available 
they will install fibre and not charge..

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

#39424

If you live in some remote place in Scotland...

https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/real-danger-landline-phone-users-060017407.html

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

#39436

On 2026/5/3 13:1:26, Richmond wrote:
> If you live in some remote place in Scotland...
> 
> https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/real-danger-landline-phone-users-060017407.html
 Uses the "more reliable digital landlines" claim again. I can't
remember ever having any problem with my existing line - but plenty with
my power.

From https://digitalphoneswitchover.com/: "The change from analogue to
digital will benefit everyone" - so far, I don't see it benefitting me.

From
<https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-and-broadband/landline-phones/future-of-landline-calls>:
"If you are dependent on your landline phone – for example, if you don’t
have a mobile phone or don’t have mobile signal at your home – your
provider must offer you a solution to make sure you can contact the
emergency services when a power cut occurs. For example, a mobile phone
(if you have signal), or a battery back-up unit for your landline
phone." *"for example, if you don’t have a mobile phone"* - that
_states_ that just not having a mobile qualifies as being "dependent on
your landline phone". And one of the things they can do is provide you
with a mobile (if you have signal)?

There are other statements in that last document that clash with what
we've learnt - mainly confusion over what "dependent" means. Some that
_don't_ even use the word.

<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/telecommunications-modernisation-connectivity-timeline>:
"All users of the Openreach PSTN will need to be migrated to new
services by the 31 January 2027."
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

And on the question of authorship, I subscribe to the view that the
plays were not in fact written by Shakespeare but by someone of the
same name. - Hugh Bonneville (RT 2014/10/11-17)

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

#39439

On 03/05/2026 23:09, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> On 2026/5/3 13:1:26, Richmond wrote:
>> If you live in some remote place in Scotland...
>>
>> https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/real-danger-landline-phone-users-060017407.html
>   Uses the "more reliable digital landlines" claim again. I can't
> remember ever having any problem with my existing line - but plenty with
> my power.
> 
>  From https://digitalphoneswitchover.com/: "The change from analogue to
> digital will benefit everyone" - so far, I don't see it benefitting me.
> 
> From
> <https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-and-broadband/landline-phones/future-of-landline-calls>:
> "If you are dependent on your landline phone – for example, if you don’t
> have a mobile phone or don’t have mobile signal at your home – your
> provider must offer you a solution to make sure you can contact the
> emergency services when a power cut occurs. For example, a mobile phone
> (if you have signal), or a battery back-up unit for your landline
> phone." *"for example, if you don’t have a mobile phone"* - that
> _states_ that just not having a mobile qualifies as being "dependent on
> your landline phone". And one of the things they can do is provide you
> with a mobile (if you have signal)?
> 
> There are other statements in that last document that clash with what
> we've learnt - mainly confusion over what "dependent" means. Some that
> _don't_ even use the word.
> 
> <https://www.gov.uk/guidance/telecommunications-modernisation-connectivity-timeline>:
> "All users of the Openreach PSTN will need to be migrated to new
> services by the 31 January 2027."

Well there are two items of note. The first is that as newer internet 
services no longer require a landline customers are ditching them as 
fast as they can, while the cost of maintaining the infrastructure is 
going up as it ages. So if the existing copper land lines were to be 
retained the price would have to rise substantially, at which point more 
customers would ditch them, so the price would rise again.

The second is that BT/OpenReach don't own their exchanges, the sold them 
and lease them back. The leases run out in 2031 at which point the rents 
will rise substantially, so again anything that reduces the number of 
exchanges required is a good thing..

.. so yes we are being lied too, because no one wants to try and explain 
that there simply is no money in fixed line telephones, and if the 
minority who still want one (the Guardian says only 47% of homes have 
one, while Zen estimates its 52% so a small majority) are forced to pay 
more the proportion would fall further, but really its a dead duck.

I wonder what strategy you would adopt to retain copper landlines at an 
affordable cost?

Dave

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

#39440

David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> writes:


> Well there are two items of note. The first is that as newer internet
> services no longer require a landline customers are ditching them as
> fast as they can, while the cost of maintaining the infrastructure is
> going up as it ages. So if the existing copper land lines were to be
> retained the price would have to rise substantially, at which point
> more customers would ditch them, so the price would rise again.
>

But the price rose substantially anyway for me, as I was told if I did
not switch to fibre I would lose my internet and phone. The fibre was
full fibre to the premises only, so I had to pay about 70% more. And
this includes the supposed savings of VOIP. And I had to move to a
different ISP and lose my phone for a week.

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

#39452

Richmond wrote:

> the price rose substantially anyway for me, as I was told if I did
> not switch to fibre I would lose my internet and phone. The fibre was
> full fibre to the premises only, so I had to pay about 70% more.

I've not got the option to migrate from FTTC to FTTP yet, but have moved 
from POTS to VoIP.  I'm under the impression that the base FTTP price is 
the same as FTTC, did you pay 70% more because of being upsold to a 
faster version of full-fibre?

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

#39453

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes:

> Richmond wrote:
>
>> the price rose substantially anyway for me, as I was told if I did
>> not switch to fibre I would lose my internet and phone. The fibre was
>> full fibre to the premises only, so I had to pay about 70% more.
>
> I've not got the option to migrate from FTTC to FTTP yet, but have
> moved from POTS to VoIP.  I'm under the impression that the base FTTP
> price is the same as FTTC, did you pay 70% more because of being
> upsold to a faster version of full-fibre?

I paid 70% more because I had no choice, there was no other option. It
was more like blackmail than up-selling. I've never had any cabinet, I
was on an exchange only line.

I think there is something going on here which gets lost in the usual
discussions about what most people have and what's best for most
people. Most people are on whatsapp and I would say that is not what is
best for them. What we are talking about here is national
infrastructure. It deserves better than Vodafone and the like.

You may have noticed someone in the firefox group saying they couldn't
reach a website. Nobody knew why. It was possible to work around it with
VPN. That's the kind of thing which will happen with VOIP, it will stop
working, no one will know why, no one will know who is responsible.

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

#39479

On 04/05/2026 15:42, Richmond wrote:
> You may have noticed someone in the firefox group saying they couldn't
> reach a website. Nobody knew why. It was possible to work around it with
> VPN. That's the kind of thing which will happen with VOIP, it will stop
> working, no one will know why, no one will know who is responsible.

So pretty much like POTS then ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TUVeVvnsgE

-- 
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have 
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

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

#39496

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 04/05/2026 15:42, Richmond wrote:
> > You may have noticed someone in the firefox group saying they couldn't
> > reach a website. Nobody knew why. It was possible to work around it with
> > VPN. That's the kind of thing which will happen with VOIP, it will stop
> > working, no one will know why, no one will know who is responsible.
> 
> So pretty much like POTS then ?
> 
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TUVeVvnsgE>

That was before Y2K, which also turned out to be a non-problem 
that fixed itself.

-- 
^Ï^.          Sn!pe, bird-brain.          My pet rock Gordon just is.
 

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

#39508

On Tue, 5 May 2026 23:23:09 +0100, snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:

>The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 04/05/2026 15:42, Richmond wrote:
>> > You may have noticed someone in the firefox group saying they couldn't
>> > reach a website. Nobody knew why. It was possible to work around it with
>> > VPN. That's the kind of thing which will happen with VOIP, it will stop
>> > working, no one will know why, no one will know who is responsible.
>> 
>> So pretty much like POTS then ?
>> 
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TUVeVvnsgE>
>
>That was before Y2K, which also turned out to be a non-problem 
>that fixed itself.

I know it's still the monring, but that's the most ill-informed
statement I've read so far today, and I doubt it will be topped.

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

#39525

Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 5 May 2026 23:23:09 +0100, snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
> 
> >The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> On 04/05/2026 15:42, Richmond wrote:
> >> > You may have noticed someone in the firefox group saying they couldn't
> >> > reach a website. Nobody knew why. It was possible to work around it with
> >> > VPN. That's the kind of thing which will happen with VOIP, it will stop
> >> > working, no one will know why, no one will know who is responsible.
> >> 
> >> So pretty much like POTS then ?
> >> 
> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TUVeVvnsgE>
> >
> >That was before Y2K, which also turned out to be a non-problem 
> >that fixed itself.
> 
> I know it's still the monring, but that's the most ill-informed
> statement I've read so far today, and I doubt it will be topped.

It was a tongue in cheek joke.     ≈:o) 

-- 
^Ï^.          Sn!pe, bird-brain.          My pet rock Gordon just is.
 

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

#39526

On 06/05/2026 17:48, Sn!pe wrote:
> Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 5 May 2026 23:23:09 +0100, snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>>
>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 04/05/2026 15:42, Richmond wrote:
>>>>> You may have noticed someone in the firefox group saying they couldn't
>>>>> reach a website. Nobody knew why. It was possible to work around it with
>>>>> VPN. That's the kind of thing which will happen with VOIP, it will stop
>>>>> working, no one will know why, no one will know who is responsible.
>>>>
>>>> So pretty much like POTS then ?
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TUVeVvnsgE>
>>>
>>> That was before Y2K, which also turned out to be a non-problem
>>> that fixed itself.
>>
>> I know it's still the monring, but that's the most ill-informed
>> statement I've read so far today, and I doubt it will be topped.
> 
> It was a tongue in cheek joke.     ≈:o)
> 
Of course. Like the advert I referenced.


-- 
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace, 
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

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

#39535

On Wed, 6 May 2026 17:48:26 +0100, snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:

>Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 5 May 2026 23:23:09 +0100, snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>> 
>> >The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 04/05/2026 15:42, Richmond wrote:
>> >> > You may have noticed someone in the firefox group saying they couldn't
>> >> > reach a website. Nobody knew why. It was possible to work around it with
>> >> > VPN. That's the kind of thing which will happen with VOIP, it will stop
>> >> > working, no one will know why, no one will know who is responsible.
>> >> 
>> >> So pretty much like POTS then ?
>> >> 
>> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TUVeVvnsgE>
>> >
>> >That was before Y2K, which also turned out to be a non-problem 
>> >that fixed itself.
>> 
>> I know it's still the monring, but that's the most ill-informed
>> statement I've read so far today, and I doubt it will be topped.
>
>It was a tongue in cheek joke.     ?:o) 

Fair enough.

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

#39536

On 2026-05-06, Sn!pe <snipeco.2@gmail.com> wrote:
> Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 5 May 2026 23:23:09 +0100, snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
>> 
>> >The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 04/05/2026 15:42, Richmond wrote:
>> >> > You may have noticed someone in the firefox group saying they couldn't
>> >> > reach a website. Nobody knew why. It was possible to work around it with
>> >> > VPN. That's the kind of thing which will happen with VOIP, it will stop
>> >> > working, no one will know why, no one will know who is responsible.
>> >> 
>> >> So pretty much like POTS then ?
>> >> 
>> >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TUVeVvnsgE>
>> >
>> >That was before Y2K, which also turned out to be a non-problem 
>> >that fixed itself.
>> 
>> I know it's still the monring, but that's the most ill-informed
>> statement I've read so far today, and I doubt it will be topped.
>
> It was a tongue in cheek joke.     ???:o) 
>

I'm glad I read on before following up!!!! A bit touchy about it sorry - 
have had many an argument with a brother-in-law who insists it was a 
non-problem.

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

#39537

Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> wrote:
[...]
> >> >That was before Y2K, which also turned out to be a non-problem 
> >> >that fixed itself.
> >> 
> >> I know it's still the monring, but that's the most ill-informed
> >> statement I've read so far today, and I doubt it will be topped.
> >>
> >
> > It was a tongue in cheek joke.       ≈:o) 
> >
> 
> I'm glad I read on before following up!!!! A bit touchy about it sorry -
> have had many an argument with a brother-in-law who insists it was a 
> non-problem.
>

Not a problem, Jim.  An erstwhile poster acquaintance of mine in a 
now defunct group did a great deal of hard work on Y2K to make it 
a 'non-problem' so I do understand how you must feel about it.

-- 
^Ï^.          Sn!pe, bird-brain.          My pet rock Gordon just is.
 

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

#39539

On 07/05/2026 14:07, Sn!pe wrote:
> Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> wrote:
> [...]
>>>>> That was before Y2K, which also turned out to be a non-problem
>>>>> that fixed itself.
>>>>
>>>> I know it's still the monring, but that's the most ill-informed
>>>> statement I've read so far today, and I doubt it will be topped.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It was a tongue in cheek joke.       ≈:o)
>>>
>>
>> I'm glad I read on before following up!!!! A bit touchy about it sorry -
>> have had many an argument with a brother-in-law who insists it was a
>> non-problem.
>>
> 
> Not a problem, Jim.  An erstwhile poster acquaintance of mine in a
> now defunct group did a great deal of hard work on Y2K to make it
> a 'non-problem' so I do understand how you must feel about it.
> 
Our company made a shitload of money doing tests on Linux and Unix 
servers to satisfy customers who didn't seem to know that the unix 
system clock wraps around later this century...
I am sure there were some BASIC or COBOL based apps where y2k was 
significant, but in a whole lot of cases there was no problem at all, 
you just had to have a piece of paper paid for and signed by someone 
saying there was no problem

Like printing money...

-- 
The difference bweteen a psychopath and a saint is that the psychpoath 
takes what he can and gives only what he must, but the saint gives 
everything he can and takes only what he needs.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | uk.telecom

csiph-web