Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > uk.telecom > #39349 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Codger <codger524@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-04-11 10:00 +0100 |
| Last post | 2026-04-16 14:42 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 160 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to uk.telecom
BT Digital Voice with no router Codger <codger524@gmail.com> - 2026-04-11 10:00 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Codger <codger524@gmail.com> - 2026-04-11 10:30 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Bob Pullen <me@privacy.net> - 2026-04-11 11:02 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router angus@magsys.co.uk (Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd) - 2026-04-11 14:12 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> - 2026-04-11 11:02 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-04-11 11:13 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-11 13:54 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-04-11 18:24 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Mike Humphrey <mail@michaelhumphrey.me.uk> - 2026-04-11 17:36 +0000
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-12 12:35 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-04-12 12:50 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-13 13:37 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-04-13 13:53 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-04-13 22:41 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-03 13:17 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-05-03 23:21 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-04 11:39 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-05-04 11:55 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-04 12:10 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-04 16:41 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> - 2026-05-04 17:37 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-04 17:46 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-05 23:33 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> - 2026-05-06 09:03 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-06 09:16 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Bob Eager <throwaway0008@eager.cx> - 2026-05-06 08:28 +0000
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> - 2026-05-06 09:31 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-06 10:34 +0200
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-06 14:34 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-05-06 16:16 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-06 17:53 +0200
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-06 18:17 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-05-06 20:23 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-06 21:41 +0200
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-05-07 14:14 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-06 09:40 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-06 14:46 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-05-06 16:27 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-05-06 16:38 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-06 18:20 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-06 19:55 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-04 19:39 +0200
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-04 19:07 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-04 22:30 +0200
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> - 2026-05-04 22:56 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-05 09:07 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-05 23:36 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-06 10:24 +0200
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-06 14:49 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2026-05-04 19:26 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> - 2026-05-04 20:06 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-04 20:13 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-05 11:09 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-04 17:46 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-04 17:50 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-04 17:58 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-04 18:19 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2026-05-04 19:36 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> - 2026-05-04 17:59 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2026-05-04 19:33 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-05 13:17 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Chris Green <cl@isbd.net> - 2026-05-05 14:11 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-05 14:28 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-05 23:40 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-06 13:50 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-06 14:53 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-06 17:53 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> - 2026-05-09 09:49 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-05 11:01 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-05-04 17:35 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-04 17:50 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-05 11:13 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-05-05 12:13 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-05 12:34 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-05 12:39 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-05 17:15 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-05-05 23:29 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-05-06 10:13 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-06 17:30 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-06 17:24 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-06 18:04 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2026-05-09 10:24 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-09 12:02 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> - 2026-05-10 10:56 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-10 18:50 +0100
OT: Steam (was: Re: BT Digital Voice with no router) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-10 20:16 +0100
Re: OT: Steam Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-11 12:12 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-11 13:13 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-05-11 18:25 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2026-05-12 09:22 +0000
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-05-12 13:22 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2026-05-12 14:21 +0000
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-12 15:34 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2026-05-12 14:50 +0000
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-05-12 16:10 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> - 2026-05-13 21:10 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-12 15:19 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-12 16:32 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-13 09:44 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2026-05-13 10:42 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-13 13:09 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router grinch <grinch@somewhere.net> - 2026-05-13 14:29 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-13 18:51 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-13 20:44 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2026-05-13 13:51 +0000
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-13 18:53 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2026-05-13 21:25 +0000
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> - 2026-05-04 19:26 +0200
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-05 11:14 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-04 21:31 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Codger <codger524@gmail.com> - 2026-05-05 08:52 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-05 11:15 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-05 12:23 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> - 2026-05-05 22:46 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-06 09:15 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2026-05-06 11:44 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-25 18:00 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-05-26 14:53 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-04 12:18 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-04 14:13 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-04 21:36 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-05-04 14:28 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-04 12:14 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-04 14:11 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> - 2026-05-05 07:39 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-05 12:25 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-05-05 13:29 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-04 12:08 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-05-04 14:24 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-04-13 23:35 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-04-14 09:13 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-04-14 18:43 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-04-14 18:51 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-04-14 20:00 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-04-15 09:56 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-04-15 09:56 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-03 13:14 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-03 13:29 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-03 14:08 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Rupert Moss-Eccardt <news@moss-eccardt.com> - 2026-05-03 16:43 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-05-03 18:39 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-03 22:39 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-04 09:15 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Rupert Moss-Eccardt <news@moss-eccardt.com> - 2026-05-03 16:43 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-05-03 18:15 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-04-12 15:40 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-04-11 18:39 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-04-11 19:59 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-04-12 08:39 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-04-12 13:08 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Rupert Moss-Eccardt <news@moss-eccardt.com> - 2026-04-19 14:29 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-04-11 20:55 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-04-11 22:08 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-04-12 08:42 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-04-12 09:33 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-04-12 13:08 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> - 2026-04-11 11:15 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> - 2026-04-11 12:43 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-04-16 13:59 +0100
Re: BT Digital Voice with no router David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> - 2026-04-16 14:42 +0100
Page 8 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
| From | JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-03 18:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10t818d$32npa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39430 |
On 03/05/2026 14:08, Richmond wrote: > Virgin Media gives out these: Don't BT / EE have an equivalent? I have a reasonable size UPS that will me going whilst I finish off any work. I would have thought there was a market for these that the retailers like Curry's would try to serve.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-03 22:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10t8fb2$32v0l$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39435 |
On 2026/5/3 18:39:23, JMB99 wrote: > On 03/05/2026 14:08, Richmond wrote: >> Virgin Media gives out these: > > > Don't BT / EE have an equivalent? > > I have a reasonable size UPS that will me going whilst I finish off any > work. I would have thought there was a market for these that the > retailers like Curry's would try to serve. > > Probably not big enough; I suspect most of those still using actual computers (rather than 'phones) will be using laptops, which are intrinsically a poor man's UPS these days (though don't feed the router of course). -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf Easy reading is damned hard writing. -Nathaniel Hawthorne, writer (1804-1864)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-04 09:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <82pl3b381c.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #39437 |
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> writes: > On 2026/5/3 18:39:23, JMB99 wrote: >> On 03/05/2026 14:08, Richmond wrote: >>> Virgin Media gives out these: >> >> >> Don't BT / EE have an equivalent? >> >> I have a reasonable size UPS that will me going whilst I finish off >> any work. I would have thought there was a market for these that the >> retailers like Curry's would try to serve. >> >> > Probably not big enough; I suspect most of those still using actual > computers (rather than 'phones) will be using laptops, which are > intrinsically a poor man's UPS these days (though don't feed the > router of course). I am using a 12 year old laptop with no battery in it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rupert Moss-Eccardt <news@moss-eccardt.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-03 16:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n5p8ojF76j8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #39427 |
On 3 May 2026 13:14, JMB99 wrote: > On 13/04/2026 13:53, Liz Tuddenham wrote: >> Nobody will care until it happens, then they will say "We couldn't have >> forseen it" and "Lessons will be learned". - They won't! > > > It will be cheaper to just give a proper UPS to any vulnerable user. Not really as you would have to keep them maintained and replace the batteries every once in a while. So actually quite a large field force. Or get cleverer UPSs that can be monitored remotely which will still need a field force, but smaller > Didn't they hand out mobile phones to an area with a long fault so could > do the same - perhaps a mobile phone restricted to emergency calls and > one other number? That assumes mobile signal. And you still have the telecare provider not knowing it if is a power cut or an emergency
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-05-03 18:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1rujp6x.16h4ugn1quyokuN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> |
| In reply to | #39427 |
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote: > On 13/04/2026 13:53, Liz Tuddenham wrote: > > Nobody will care until it happens, then they will say "We couldn't have > > forseen it" and "Lessons will be learned". - They won't! > > > It will be cheaper to just give a proper UPS to any vulnerable user. > > Didn't they hand out mobile phones to an area with a long fault so could > do the same - perhaps a mobile phone restricted to emergency calls and > one other number? If it could be switched on only when needed, it might be useful but keeping it running in case a call is received is a ridiculous waste of power and resources. POTS uses 2 watts for a telephone conversation and no power at all on standby. -- ~ Liz Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-12 15:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10rgasv$2jog1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39378 |
On 12/04/2026 12:35, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 11/04/2026 18:36, Mike Humphrey wrote: >> How do we >> "find a modern digital solution" when there is no broadband service >> available from Openreach or any other supplier? > > If you have a copper telephone line you can at least have a modem > Very few locations are totally unusable for ADSL.. > > The BT solution is Starlink.... https://newsroom.bt.com/bt-group-and-starlink-pave-the-way-for-high-speed-home-broadband-in-the-uks-hardest-to-reach-places/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-11 18:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <82mrz9cs6g.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #39367 |
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes: > They won't. This is only a temporary service that will be ceased when > the Exchanges close. Its also not available for new supply, only as a > migration from a POTS line... > This temporary solution sounds better than the permanent one, which is to provide an ATA in the router which breaks various bits of equipment like my Truecall device. Will they be selling off these ATAs which can do the necessary voltage changes on the line eventually? so I can buy one and put it in my living room?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-11 19:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10re5ne$1vvtr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39369 |
On 11/04/2026 18:39, Richmond wrote: > David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes: > > >> They won't. This is only a temporary service that will be ceased when >> the Exchanges close. Its also not available for new supply, only as a >> migration from a POTS line... >> > > This temporary solution sounds better than the permanent one, which is > to provide an ATA in the router which breaks various bits of equipment > like my Truecall device. Will they be selling off these ATAs which can > do the necessary voltage changes on the line eventually? so I can buy > one and put it in my living room? That is very odd as TrueCall claim it will work with BT's Digital Voice service... https://www.truecall.co.uk/category-s/128.htm Q. Which network providers does trueCall support? A. trueCall will work on standard analogue domestic telephone lines from all the main telephone providers, and on most digital lines (with the exception of Vodafone, Zen Internet and Community Fibre). We recommend that you turn on the Caller ID service from your phone supplier (this is free). They claim it won't work with ZEN which I find very odd... .. actually I see why now. https://forums.thinkbroadband.com/zen/4739885-digital-voice-fritzbox-7530-has-broken-my-answerphone.html?fpart=all&vc=1 Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-12 08:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <82ldespqzp.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #39370 |
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes: > That is very odd as TrueCall claim it will work with BT's Digital > Voice service... > > https://www.truecall.co.uk/category-s/128.htm > > Q. Which network providers does trueCall support? > A. trueCall will work on standard analogue domestic telephone lines > from all the main telephone providers, and on most digital lines (with > the exception of Vodafone, Zen Internet and Community Fibre). We > recommend that you turn on the Caller ID service from your phone > supplier (this is free). > > > They claim it won't work with ZEN which I find very odd... > .. actually I see why now. > > https://forums.thinkbroadband.com/zen/4739885-digital-voice-fritzbox-7530-has-broken-my-answerphone.html?fpart=all&vc=1 > > Dave As far as I can work out in my case it is because the router does not supply enough power for the ring signal to get through the truecall box to the phone. But if the truecall itself provides the ring power then the phone rings. So the upshot of that it that the system doesn't work for trusted callers, only for callers who type the code in. This is down to the type of router I expect but it isn't worth buying a new router. I did come across some device which would send a ringing signal but I don't know if it would work so just haven't bothered.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-12 13:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <82h5pgpej7.fsf@example.com> |
| In reply to | #39374 |
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes: > I did come across some device which would send a ringing signal but I > don't know if it would work so just haven't bothered. https://www.simpletelecoms.co.uk/sim-data-only-plan-1-860-pm-c2x38327295
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rupert Moss-Eccardt <news@moss-eccardt.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-19 14:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n4k3m2FbpqqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #39369 |
On 11 Apr 2026 18:39, Richmond wrote: > David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> writes: > > >> They won't. This is only a temporary service that will be ceased when >> the Exchanges close. Its also not available for new supply, only as a >> migration from a POTS line... >> > > This temporary solution sounds better than the permanent one, which is > to provide an ATA in the router which breaks various bits of equipment > like my Truecall device. Will they be selling off these ATAs which can > do the necessary voltage changes on the line eventually? so I can buy > one and put it in my living room? > The ATA in the EE Smart Hub 6 was able to drive the bell in a BT Tribune. I had to get a little dongle for it to make a 746 ring. BT/EE also sell a DECT extender for the Hub which has similar capabilties. Of course, if they are out of contract they can swap to a SIP provider and buy an ATA of their choice. The Grandstream HT 801, for example even supports pulse dialling so works with the 746 quite nicely. However all these solutions need assured power.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-11 20:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1rtf5y8.we0r29u3dg00N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> |
| In reply to | #39367 |
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote: [...] > "However, this remains a temporary solution, which allows enough time > for the most challenging / vulnerable and CNI users to find a modern > digital solution. The bloody cheek of it! They have created a problem with their greed to sell off the exchanges and copper - then they put the ounus on their customers to find a way around it. -- ~ Liz Tuddenham ~ (Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply) www.poppyrecords.co.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-11 22:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10red8f$1vvtr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39371 |
On 11/04/2026 20:55, Liz Tuddenham wrote: > David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote: > > [...] >> "However, this remains a temporary solution, which allows enough time >> for the most challenging / vulnerable and CNI users to find a modern >> digital solution. > > The bloody cheek of it! They have created a problem with their greed to > sell off the exchanges and copper - then they put the ounus on their > customers to find a way around it. > > The demise of landlines is a natural process. Most users do not want a landline and are ditching them as fast as they can. Given only about 10% of households want a landline, would they be prepared to pay the cost of retaining the Exchanges and copper infrastructure? I doubt it very much. BT/Openreach announced the end of copper 10 years ago, yet suppliers continued to sell solutions they knew would be obsolete. Why? Why are Truecall still selling a device they know won't work with several modern systems. They have had many years to develop a replacement but haven't. Why is this? Probably because they know the market is too small to make this profitable. So whilst many of those who grew up with a landline want to keep one, its simply no longer viable... Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-12 08:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10rfid6$2cmd6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39372 |
On 11/04/2026 22:08, David Wade wrote: > BT/Openreach announced the end of copper 10 years ago, yet suppliers > continued to sell solutions they knew would be obsolete. Why? Why are > Truecall still selling a device they know won't work with several modern > systems. They have had many years to develop a replacement but haven't. > Why is this? Probably because they know the market is too small to make > this profitable. Haven't Truecall licensed many people to use their system? If it can be done in software then no market for hardware to do the same function.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-12 09:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <D4l*5yTDA@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #39372 |
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote: > On 11/04/2026 20:55, Liz Tuddenham wrote: > > David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote: > > > > [...] > >> "However, this remains a temporary solution, which allows enough time > >> for the most challenging / vulnerable and CNI users to find a modern > >> digital solution. > > > > The bloody cheek of it! They have created a problem with their greed to > > sell off the exchanges and copper - then they put the ounus on their > > customers to find a way around it. > > > > > The demise of landlines is a natural process. Most users do not want a > landline and are ditching them as fast as they can. Given only about 10% > of households want a landline, would they be prepared to pay the cost of > retaining the Exchanges and copper infrastructure? I doubt it very much. Plus the subscribers who are most dependent on older telecare boxes etc have a natural rate of decay... > BT/Openreach announced the end of copper 10 years ago, yet suppliers > continued to sell solutions they knew would be obsolete. Why? Why are > Truecall still selling a device they know won't work with several modern > systems. They have had many years to develop a replacement but haven't. > Why is this? Probably because they know the market is too small to make > this profitable. There's no excuses for the telecare people, whose customers are paying ongoing service fees, but I have a bit of sympathy for Truecall. Previously they just had the 'BT' network to rely on, with a side order of Virgin Media. BT's network followed the SINs, because they wrote them. Now you have every ISP bringing in their VOIP solution with a half-baked set of voice settings on whatever router they bought this week, half of which might not be localised to the UK, and they have no clue about the voice interface or how debug these nitpicking details: 'works for me' is the best you'll get. > So whilst many of those who grew up with a landline want to keep one, > its simply no longer viable... While that is inevitable, I fear quality is a lost cause. Reliability is already suffering, and I suspect it's not going to improve. Theo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-12 13:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <F4l*ilUDA@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #39377 |
Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > There's no excuses for the telecare people, whose customers are paying > ongoing service fees, but I have a bit of sympathy for Truecall. Previously > they just had the 'BT' network to rely on, with a side order of Virgin > Media. BT's network followed the SINs, because they wrote them. Now you > have every ISP bringing in their VOIP solution with a half-baked set of > voice settings on whatever router they bought this week, half of which might > not be localised to the UK, and they have no clue about the voice interface > or how debug these nitpicking details: 'works for me' is the best you'll > get. Actually, I wonder if someone could build a VOIP line testing setup. You'd need an outgoing VOIP connection where you had full control of the signalling - perhaps an Asterisk box plus a known-good SIP provider could do that. You'd also need an analogue FXO port - perhaps there's a driver for a USB softmodem that might suffice. Then you could write some tests for various line behaviour and show the results to the ISP. Whether they would care or not is a different question... Theo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Carver <mark@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-11 11:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10rd70s$1o09q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39351 |
On 11/04/2026 11:02, Woody wrote: > On Sat 11/04/2026 10:00, Codger wrote: >> A neighbour has received a letter from BT to say that her phone >> service will be switched to DV. The >> full number will need to be dialled and there will be new features for >> voice messaging etc. So far >> so good. >> >> But the letter also states that the switchover will not require any >> new equipment at the customer >> premised or an engineer's visit, all the work will be done at the >> exchange. >> >> This is odd as she has no broadband service, just POTS phones. >> >> Will she be put on "SOGEA for Analog" so just putting off the inevitable? > > > We had the same. > > Effectively they will put the ATA (Analogue Telephone Adapter) in the > exchange building but the switching/connection of the call could be > anywhere in the world (let all UK!) so the full dialling code+number > must be dialled even for local calls. However the system will pick up 1 > series and 999 before conversion and route them accordingly.. > > The reason is that they have failed to find a suitable solution to > systems - such a OAP alarms - that require voltage changes on the line etc. > > So much for getting rid of copper! It's only a stop gap, until Openreach work out a model using FTTP Until such time that all premises currently served by FTTC, have not (for whatever reason) been switched to FTTP, copper will remain. However, I'm surprised looking at Bob's document, the solution is not installed inside the FTTC cabinet, because that would allow the truck multi-pairs between the exchange and cabinet to be 'forgotton'quicker ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-11 12:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10rdc5u$1oepq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39354 |
On 11/04/2026 11:15, Mark Carver wrote: > On 11/04/2026 11:02, Woody wrote: >> On Sat 11/04/2026 10:00, Codger wrote: >>> A neighbour has received a letter from BT to say that her phone >>> service will be switched to DV. The >>> full number will need to be dialled and there will be new features >>> for voice messaging etc. So far >>> so good. >>> >>> But the letter also states that the switchover will not require any >>> new equipment at the customer >>> premised or an engineer's visit, all the work will be done at the >>> exchange. >>> >>> This is odd as she has no broadband service, just POTS phones. >>> >>> Will she be put on "SOGEA for Analog" so just putting off the >>> inevitable? >> >> >> We had the same. >> >> Effectively they will put the ATA (Analogue Telephone Adapter) in the >> exchange building but the switching/connection of the call could be >> anywhere in the world (let all UK!) so the full dialling code+number >> must be dialled even for local calls. However the system will pick up >> 1 series and 999 before conversion and route them accordingly.. >> >> The reason is that they have failed to find a suitable solution to >> systems - such a OAP alarms - that require voltage changes on the line >> etc. >> >> So much for getting rid of copper! > Its confusing, there are two projects which are intertwined. One is to get rid of POTS as a service, so move every one to VOIP. The other is to get rid of copper and move everyone to FTTP. > It's only a stop gap, until Openreach work out a model using FTTP > > Until such time that all premises currently served by FTTC, have not > (for whatever reason) been switched to FTTP, copper will remain. But only as the last leg. These customers are being moved to VOIP. > However, I'm surprised looking at Bob's document, the solution is not > installed inside the FTTC cabinet, because that would allow the truck > multi-pairs between the exchange and cabinet to be 'forgotton'quicker ? Perhaps, but FTTC cabs are probably more of a problem than the trunk cables. So doing this requires capacity in the FTTC cabinets, is this available? Are there enough pairs between the POTS cabinets and the FTTC cabinets to provide the backlinks as they are separate. Is there management software to configure the DSLAM as an ATA? Is this information recorded? It also might require the FTTC cabinets to be maintained for longer periods. That means managing the batteries, which I gather are often stolen, or have died through old age for power cuts etc. This way that is all managed in the exchange. Once people have been migrated from FTTC to FTTP they can be removed. By doing it in the Exchange it is all managed and provisioned in one place. No need to change any street wiring, just a patch in the Exchange. Minimal extra records, no need to record an FTTC cab is used for both FTTC and POTS. Much less effort. By the way, whilst many say "I don't need FTTP" staying on FTTC is becoming expensive. When an FTTC contract expires if FTTP is available that is the only option that is available for a new contract or bundle. So you have a stark choice, stay on the expensive out of contract rates or migrate to FTTP. Given the above, I would say FTTC is likely to vanish in FTTP areas more quickly than POTS lines, so terminating the POTS lines in the exchange is the logical solution. Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-16 13:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10rqmfp$1mn2v$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39349 |
On 11/04/2026 10:00, Codger wrote: > A neighbour has received a letter from BT to say that her phone service will be switched to DV. The > full number will need to be dialled and there will be new features for voice messaging etc. So far > so good. > > But the letter also states that the switchover will not require any new equipment at the customer > premised or an engineer's visit, all the work will be done at the exchange. > > This is odd as she has no broadband service, just POTS phones. > > Will she be put on "SOGEA for Analog" so just putting off the inevitable? At least in my case, the product name is Pre-Digital Phone line (PDPL) and the BT wholesale handbook is <https://www.bt.com/bt-plc/assets/documents/special-services/pdpl-wholesale-product-handbook.pdf>. It is a stop gap with an end date of 2030. It is being forced on customers on the vulnerable list, which includes anyone over 70. I think it was only introduced last year. The literature says that it may not work with community alarms. I suspect the real reasons are to do with exchange powering. What they don't tell you is that if you have ADSL over the line, that gets ceased. My ISP didn't understand this at the time, and Openreach seem to think that the SoGEA, that I'll need to get back off mobile tethering, is a new supply and will need a new cable, even though I have followed up by transferring the number to the ISP's VoIP service, so I have a nice, unused, NTE 5A, for them to use. If you do get one of these letters, and you actually have broadband, you should initiate a combined port of number and broadband as a matter of extreme urgency, and make sure your ISP understands what is going on. Don't expect them to have heard of this already. More generally, if you've been putting off moving to FTTC, because you are hoping for FTTP, in the near future, I'd suggest now is the time move to FTTC, and not wait for the letter, or the latter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-04-16 14:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10rqp11$1nfv0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39403 |
On 16/04/2026 13:59, David Woolley wrote: > At least in my case, the product name is Pre-Digital Phone line (PDPL) > and the BT wholesale handbook is <https://www.bt.com/bt-plc/assets/ > documents/special-services/pdpl-wholesale-product-handbook.pdf>. It is > a stop gap with an end date of 2030. It is being forced on customers on > the vulnerable list, which includes anyone over 70. I think it was only > introduced last year. The literature says that it may not work with > community alarms. I suspect the real reasons are to do with exchange > powering. A link to the government information about this is <https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/telecare-national-action-plan-protecting-telecare-users-throughout-the-digital-phone-switchover/telecare-national-action-plan-protecting-telecare-users-through-the-digital-phone-switchover#bt-wholesale-pre-digital-phoneline-service>
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]
Back to top | Article view | uk.telecom
csiph-web