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

Groups > uk.telecom.broadband > #57238 > unrolled thread

Broadband Over Mobile Network

Back to article view | Back to uk.telecom.broadband

Contents

  Broadband Over Mobile Network "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-05-17 10:08 +0000
    Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2026-05-17 11:05 +0000
      Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-05-17 12:18 +0100
        Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2026-05-17 11:54 +0000
      Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-05-21 20:24 +0000
        Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 05:39 +0000
          Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-05-22 13:13 +0000
            Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> - 2026-05-25 10:10 +0100
              Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2026-05-25 13:25 +0100
              Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 08:16 +0000
                Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network "Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> - 2026-05-27 08:43 +0000
                  Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 12:54 +0000
                Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> - 2026-05-27 10:20 +0100
                  Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-05-27 12:54 +0000
                    Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> - 2026-05-27 19:31 +0100
                      Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-05-27 20:09 +0100
                      Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 07:17 +0000
                        Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 07:26 +0000
                        Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2026-05-28 07:59 +0000
                          Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2026-05-28 14:07 +0000
                      Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2026-05-28 11:14 +0100
                  Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> - 2026-05-27 13:43 +0000
                  Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2026-05-27 16:36 +0100
                Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Davey <davey@example.invalid> - 2026-05-28 11:32 +0100
                Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> - 2026-06-01 09:49 +0100
                  Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> - 2026-06-01 11:12 +0100
                  Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2026-06-02 16:44 +0100
                    Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-06-02 23:46 +0100
                      Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> - 2026-06-03 09:08 +0100
                        Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2026-06-03 13:58 +0100
                          Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-06-04 00:06 +0100
                            Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2026-06-04 03:32 +0100
                              Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-06-04 05:13 +0100
    Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network Jeff Layman <Jeff@invalid.invalid> - 2026-05-17 15:01 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#57323

On 2026-05-27 19:31, Bob Latham wrote:
 >
> In article <10v6phk$2or22$1@dont-email.me>,
>     Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> [but hypocritically the worst spammer of them all] wrote:
>>> 
>>> Okay, I get it now. So the majority of this boils down to - he's
>>> immoral because he doesn't hold left wing views.
> 
>> He's immoral by any definition. People not accepting that says more
>> about them then anything else.

+1

> I note ... 
[The usual OT, and irrelevant to your own original point about Elon 
Musk, right-wing diarrhoea snipped!]

IOW:  You can't win the Elon Musk argument so you attempt to move the 
goalposts.  When are you going to learn to debate like an adult?

-- 

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: 
www.macfh.co.uk

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

#57316

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote

[…]

> I'm increasingly of the opinion that the problem with left wing
> people starts from the fundamental delusion that if you hold left
> wing views you are morally superior.

The problem with left-wingers is their trope of ”see the world as you wish
it to be, rather than as it really is”, which accounts for most of the
stupidity of things like ’nut zero’.


-- 
Spike

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

#57317

On 2026-05-27 10:20, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,
>     Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <10upkpq$1gp7v$1@dont-email.me>,
> 
>>> Do enlighten me why he's immoral? I'm unaware of why you might
>>> have that opinion.
> 
>> Sorry to be rude, but have you been living under a rock over the
>> last five years?
> 
>> He called a british rescuer a paedophile on twitter - on what seems
>> like a whim - who had to take him up court to get him to stop.
> 
>> He turned twitter into a ring-wing echo chamber
> 
>> making it an unsafe place for women and any minorities to be
>> present.
> 
>> He refuses to remove any content nor accounts regardless of how
>> horrendous it is.
> 
>> Only very reluctantly stopped Grok being used to undress female
>> celebrities.
> 
>> He tore through the US government with his DOGE team which randomly
>> fired thousands of people for little reason and no notice (yay, us
>> labour laws). Claimed he would save $1tn, only $12bn or so can be
>> accounted for. No improvements in efficiencies have been
>> identified.
> 
>> These are just off the top of my head, and if that's not enough he
>> has publicly attacked his own child for being trans. BTW he has at
>> least 14 children with 4 or 5 different mothers.
> 
>> I'm also increasingly of the opinion that all billionaires are
>> immoral by definition.
> 
> Okay, I get it now. So the majority of this boils down to - he's
> immoral because he doesn't hold left wing views.
> 
> I'm increasingly of the opinion that the problem with left wing
> people starts from the fundamental delusion that if you hold left
> wing views you are morally superior.
> 
> Thanks for answering the question.

As the examples given by both of us show, left-wing right-wing has 
nothing to do with it.  He's immoral because he treats the rest of the 
world apart from himself as either put there for his own selfish use 
regardless of considerations of other people, or else as shit.

-- 

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: 
www.macfh.co.uk

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

#57324

On Wed, 27 May 2026 08:16:29 -0000 (UTC)
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network
> Date: Wed, 27 May 2026 08:16:29 -0000 (UTC)
> User-Agent: NewsTap/5.6.3 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
> Newsgroups: uk.telecom.broadband
> Organisation: A noiseless patient Spider
> 
> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <10upkpq$1gp7v$1@dont-email.me>,
> >    Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> Maybe so, but having core infrastructure at the mercy of and
> >> dependent on someone as immoral as Musk is a risk not worth taking
> >> in my book.   
> > 
> > Do enlighten me why he's immoral? I'm unaware of why you might have
> > that opinion.  
> 
> Sorry to be rude, but have you been living under a rock over the last
> five years?
> 
> He called a british rescuer a paedophile on twitter - on what seems
> like a whim - who had to take him up court to get him to stop. 

The recent TV series The Elon Musk Show, which I believe was filmed in
2022, said that Musk had already apologised, but Unsworth felt
that he had to sue Musk to defend his reputation. I don't know which
version is correct, although I see confirmation that the offending
tweet was delete, but the idea of tackling someone as rich as Musk on a
point of view seemed rather risky.

-- 
Davey.

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

#57334

In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,
   Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:

> He turned twitter into a ring-wing echo chamber making it an unsafe
> place for women and any minorities to be present. 

I do apologise, I should have addressed this at the time.

How the blazes can you be "unsafe" reading & writing on your phone?
 
Do people fear their phones will explode?

Up to the point where Mr. Musk took charge of twitter it was heavily
filtered in favour of the woke left. Posts not with left views were
blocked. It was a left wing echo chamber, you've admitted as much
yourself.

When musk took over he stopped the filtering and bias and allowed
people from the right to speak, he did NOT filter out the left, no
right wing echo chanber. How unreasonable of him, free speech for all
how awful. The light of reality shone in the sacred hall of leftism
like dracula's castle at dawn.

This is why you think people felt unsafe afterwards isn't it? Because
left wing ideology could be called out, challenged, and dismantled by
reality and the world of fantasy collapses. Then all the Snowflakes
ran off to another platform. If they had a decent arguments that
wouldn't happen. 

Bob.

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

#57335

Social media can be used to influence election outcomes. Google must
have known this when they tried to take over usenet. They tried to take
it over, and then make everyone identify with a google account so they
could be tracked. This was perhaps the most important reason for
resisting, not the spam, the garbage and the HTML.

Social media can be unsafe for the vulnerable, just as vulnerable
software can be unsafe.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/09/myanmar-facebooks-systems-promoted-violence-against-rohingya-meta-owes-reparations-new-report/

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

#57340

On 2026-06-01 09:49, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,
>     Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> He turned twitter into a ring-wing echo chamber making it an unsafe
>> place for women and any minorities to be present.
> 
> I do apologise, I should have addressed this at the time.
> 
> How the blazes can you be "unsafe" reading & writing on your phone?
>   
> Do people fear their phones will explode?
> 
> Up to the point where Mr. Musk took charge of twitter it was heavily
> filtered in favour of the woke left. Posts not with left views were
> blocked. It was a left wing echo chamber, you've admitted as much
> yourself.

False opinion stated as if it were fact.

> When musk took over he stopped the filtering and bias and allowed
> people from the right to speak, he did NOT filter out the left, no
> right wing echo chanber. How unreasonable of him, free speech for all
> how awful. The light of reality shone in the sacred hall of leftism
> like dracula's castle at dawn.

False opinion stated as if it were fact.  The actual facts are believed 
to be as follows:

https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/elon-musk-trump-x-algorithm-bias-b2640976.html

"Analysis of the social media platform – which the tech billionaire 
acquired in 2022 – showed that Mr Musk’s posts saw a sudden increase in 
views and engagement shortly after he began endorsing Donald Trump for 
US president.

[...]

“The analysis of Elon Musk’s engagement metrics on X (formerly Twitter) 
reveals that Musk’s account exhibited distinct and elevated engagement 
patterns compared to other accounts, particularly around a key 
structural change on 13 July, 2024,” the researchers wrote in a study 
detailing their analysis.

“These findings underscore a distinct pattern that may indicate an 
algorithmic shift that disproportionately favoured Musk’s account, 
contributing to a considerable engagement advantage.”

The researchers studied more than 56,000 posts on X from a selection of 
Democrat-leaning and Republican-leaning accounts in order to provide a 
basis of comparison for Mr Musk’s political posts.

Examining three engagement metrics – view counts, retweets and 
favourites – the study found that the potential of algorithmic bias 
“favoured [his] content in terms of visibility or recommendation” from 
13 July onwards.

After this date, view counts of the billionaire’s posts shot up by 138 
per cent, while retweets rose by 238 per cent, suggesting that he 
benefited from “an enhanced increase in visibility post-change relative 
to other accounts”.

The results raise important questions about the potential impact of 
algorithmic adjustments on public discourse and the ‘neutrality’ of 
social media platforms, according to the researchers."

Note the 138% percent figure.

> This is why you think people felt unsafe afterwards isn't it? Because
> left wing ideology could be called out, challenged, and dismantled by
> reality and the world of fantasy collapses. Then all the Snowflakes
> ran off to another platform. If they had a decent arguments that
> wouldn't happen.

The effects of the changes outlined above were to help a presidential 
candidate who by then was certainly a convicted felon and already widely 
suspected to be a Russian asset, suspicions that since have been 
confirmed by his disastrous second term, as appended in detail below.

In summary, everything Trump does on the international stage either 
favours Putin, for example the Iran war pushing up oil prices, or else 
falls within "spheres of three superpower influence" (where Trump gets 
to do what he likes in the Americas like Venezuela and Cuba, Putin gets 
to do what he likes in Europe in general and Ukraine in particular, and 
Xi gets to do what he likes in Asia).

If you don't want to wade through the evidence stacked up below, just 
ask yourself one simple question: Trump is famous for publicly attacking 
his political and other enemies, even including The Pope, so is there 
any public figure whom he has never publicly criticised?  Yes, his name 
is Vladimir Putin.

And all this was enabled largely through Musk's support in biasing 
Twitter/X to be a pro-Musk, and therefore pro-Trump, platform, rather 
than an independent and unbiased one.

========

Trump's pro-Russian treachery ...

General evidence:

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxZAvKlZ7qc
         (mainly approximately first 10 mins)

More specifically:

1)    As previously widely covered in various media stories, Russian 
money and Russian investors in previous Trump ventures mean that he is 
beholden to them, and one wonders who bought most of the Trump meme coin 
released around the start of his second term, and how much influence 
thereby those buyers have gained over him?

 
https://www.alternet.org/2017/01/donald-trump-was-bailed-out-bankruptcy-russia-crime-bosses
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsIntuxmXf0
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5NWwcgyNZk (8:39 in)
     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/$Trump#Reception

2)    As previously widely covered in various media stories, his early 
visits to Russia, for example:

 
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-russia-the-hidden-history-of-trumps-first-trip-to-moscow/

3)    Famously once remarked that he trusted Putin more than he trusted 
his own security services.

4)    Appointing known Russian sympathisers to administration positions 
at different levels, potentially significantly compromising US security 
specifically and Western security more generally.  The many examples 
include ...

     J D Vance      -  Vance's advancement in life has been funded by
                       Peter Thiel, who, as the Epstein papers have
                       revealed, had some involvement in Epstein's
                       Russian connections and is a possible Russian
                       asset.  Unsurprisingly therefore, Vance himself
                       has often publicly parroted pro-Russian or pro-
                       Putin propaganda, and led the attempted
                       humiliation of President Zelensky in the Oval
                       Office.

     Tulsi Gabbard  -  Probable Russian asset appointed as DNI (Jeez!),
                       but thankfully has now resigned, but one wonders
                       how much damage has already been done.
	
     Sergio Gor     -  Born Sergey Gorokhovsky in Tashkent.  Another
                       probable/possible Russian asset.  Formerly he was
                       Director of the White House Presidential Personnel
                       Office from Nov 24 to August 25, now US Ambassador
                       to India.  There was much controversy about his
                       time in the WH because of his murky past and the
                       fact that he had never had proper security
                       clearance for the role, yet in that role was
                       responsible for ensuring that other WH employees
                       had proper security clearance.

5)    Gave badly needed Covid-19 testing equipment to Putin during the 
height of the pandemic.

6)    Russian style of 'negotiation', as described by Kaja Kallas: 
Demand the max, don't give an inch, so that in the end you come away 
with something that you've never had before.

7)    Russian psychological mixture of self-proclaimed victimhood, 
conceit, vengefulness, and cruelty: "They stole the election from me", 
"I will stop that war within 24 hours", "Crooked Joe Biden", "You 
haven't got the cards!".

8)    Posturing over Panama Canal, Greenland, & Canada exactly like 
Russia's posturing over former Soviet Block states;

9)    Like Russia, breaks existing agreements, for example the current 
so-called 'tariff wars' breaking previous economic agreements with 
formerly well-respected allies, agreements which were working perfectly 
satisfactorily in the view of most economists and politicians.

10)    The tariffs themselves when used in such a widespread way become 
a mechanism of a managed rather than a free-market economy, exactly 
contrary to traditional Republican and conservative principles and 
suggestive of Communism, the well-documented economic failure of which 
doesn't seem to deter Trump.  Particularly, the intended reduction of 
imbalance of trade mirrors what the Soviet Union tried to do in 
manufacturing everything they needed internally, which was one of the 
factors leading to its collapse.

11)    Repeats Russian propaganda unquestioningly, such as the 'hundreds 
of surrounded Ukrainian fighters' towards the end of the Ukrainian 
incursion into Kursk, whom he 'begged Putin to spare', but who were 
never surrounded to need anyone's mercy; meanwhile there are countless 
videos of Ukrainian PoWs who have surrendered to the Russians being 
summarily executed, countless well-documented accounts of children being 
killed by Russian strikes on civilian infrastructure, countless children 
abducted for 'Russification' in Russia, and video evidence being posted 
online by Russians themselves of Ukrainian civilians in Kherson being 
hunted and killed by Russian drones, all of which are blatant war 
crimes, and Russia's own soldiers are being brutally sacrificed in a 
useless war to the extent that even cripples on crutches are being sent 
back to the front to hobble towards Ukrainian positions so that they 
will be killed and the state won't have to pay for their medical 
treatment, so does anyone really think that Putin would genuinely spare 
any Ukrainian unless he happened in a particular case to have a 
particular reason for doing so?

12)    Russian styles of propaganda:  a)    Hijack the news to distract 
from coverage of adverse events:  for example, when there is a NATO 
meeting concerning the war, or a meeting in Ukraine's peace process, the 
Russians often bomb a hospital or a children's playground so that the 
news is filled with that rather than the adverse event  -  it doesn't 
matter to them that what they do is a war crime or atrocity, all the 
better for hijacking the news, and anyway they'll have no shame about 
lying that they were bombing military personnel, regardless of how 
publicly and freely available the undeniable evidence to the contrary. 
Similarly, during the presidential election debate, which most agree was 
being and was won by Harris, "They're eating the pets", it didn't matter 
that this was a blatant lie, it partially hijacked the news cycle away 
from Harris' success.

13)    Russian styles of propaganda:  b)    The Firehose Of Falsehood: 
Create so many narratives that people get confused into a sense that 
there is no longer any absolute undeniable truth; MAGA generally and 
Trump particularly are famous for making multiple false claims at the 
same time, often in the same sentence, some of which may even be 
mutually contradictory.

14)    Russian styles of propaganda:  c)    Create imagined enemies from 
which only the 'great leader' can save the nation, so Putin creates 
unfounded fears in Russia regarding NATO etc, while Trump creates fears 
in America regarding 'wokeness', the 'deep state', and other 
non-existent or non-threatening alleged 'threats', which twats like you 
believe unquestioningly.

15)    Russian styles of propaganda:  d)    Accuse enemies of exactly 
what you are doing or about to do.  For example, Russia falsely accuses 
Ukraine of having bio-warfare labs, yet itself constantly uses chemical 
weapons in the war.  Similarly, Trump constantly accuses political 
opponents of having done things he has done himself, as described here:
 
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/24/opinions/trumps-absurd-projection-reveals-his-anxiety-avlon/index.html

16)    Seems to be trying to make come true the unhinged plan of his 
uncle outlined in the following video, hence his doomed attempt at 
re-alignment with Russia, who obviously are using this obsession to play 
him like a hooked fish (Trump 31 mins in, but my advice is to watch it 
all to gain a better historical perspective):

Top Investigative Journalist EXPOSES TRUMP-MAGA-PUTIN Links
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tBX94b4vCw

17)    Defends Sumy strike killing over 30 civilians as a 'mistake' on 
no tangible evidence.

-- 

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: 
www.macfh.co.uk

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

#57345

(OT for the thread and 'group)

On 2026/6/2 16:44:18, Java Jive wrote:
> On 2026-06-01 09:49, Bob Latham wrote:
>> In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,
>>     Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> He turned twitter into a ring-wing echo chamber making it an unsafe
>>> place for women and any minorities to be present.

[]
And much more about Twitter/X.

Surely, X is only the cesspit it's made out to be if you choose to
follow the political (and other) ranters (such as Messrs Musk, Trump,
etc. [whichever "side" they're on])? More generally, every person's X
feed is, surely, different, depending on who they follow; mine contains
pictures of cats in shops, word games, pictures of the sea from a
Northumberland window, posts from a rather fun French lady on the ISS,
posts from a rather fun lady historian, things from the office of
national statistics, quotes from A. A. (and sometimes C. R.) Milne,
posts from the University of Warwick campus cat, BBC headlines, and the
occasional advert; the only (arguably) political posts I take are those
from the Moscow Correspondent, and even those are sometimes him playing
the piano instead (which he's very good at). So I don't see any of the
"cesspit" stuff - and I'm sure I'm not alone.

It's the only _modern_ "social media" I take; I take usenet 'groups
(though not currently any political ones unless you count the Archers!),
which is of course social media, just not one most people have heard of.
I don't like Facebook, not for any political-type reason but because I
can't stand how a Facebook page works technically; I'm not on Instagram
or WhatsApp because I fail to see what they'd do for me that email (and
perhaps text messaging) don't, and don't want to have yet another thing
I have to follow. I'm not sure what being "on" TikTok would mean; AFAICS
it's just a video thing like YouTube (which I do use, and comment on,
though I've never posted a video there).
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

offensive speech is something to be protected, not celebrated.
- "yoni", 2015-8-5

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

#57346

In article <10vnmh1$36cu1$2@dont-email.me>,
   J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:


> Surely, X is only the cesspit it's made out to be if you choose to
> follow the political (and other) ranters (such as Messrs Musk,
> Trump, etc. [whichever "side" they're on])? More generally, every
> person's X feed is, surely, different, depending on who they
> follow; mine contains pictures of cats in shops, word games,
> pictures of the sea from a Northumberland window, posts from a
> rather fun French lady on the ISS, posts from a rather fun lady
> historian, things from the office of national statistics, quotes
> from A. A. (and sometimes C. R.) Milne, posts from the University
> of Warwick campus cat, BBC headlines, and the occasional advert;
> the only (arguably) political posts I take are those from the
> Moscow Correspondent, and even those are sometimes him playing the
> piano instead (which he's very good at). So I don't see any of the
> "cesspit" stuff - and I'm sure I'm not alone.

> It's the only _modern_ "social media" I take; I take usenet 'groups
> (though not currently any political ones unless you count the
> Archers!), which is of course social media, just not one most
> people have heard of. I don't like Facebook, not for any
> political-type reason but because I can't stand how a Facebook page
> works technically; I'm not on Instagram or WhatsApp because I fail
> to see what they'd do for me that email (and perhaps text
> messaging) don't, and don't want to have yet another thing I have
> to follow. I'm not sure what being "on" TikTok would mean; AFAICS
> it's just a video thing like YouTube (which I do use, and comment
> on, though I've never posted a video there).

Yes, I think I can agree with most of that. Not the BBC obviously,
they're too awful, I only see them when people quote their mad woke
output.

If you don't like what someone is saying, switch them off, block them
- whatever, don't go all snowflake because "we are offended" crap is
just controlling the narrative it's false and poor acting. 

Though it does help if you have blue hair. ;-)

Bob.

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

#57347

On 2026-06-03 09:08, Bob Latham wrote:
>
> In article <10vnmh1$36cu1$2@dont-email.me>,
>     J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

[Many big snips in the quote chain]

WHOOSH!  Obviously the entire discussion above went way over your head.

-- 

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: 
www.macfh.co.uk

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

#57350

On 2026/6/3 13:58:48, Java Jive wrote:
> On 2026-06-03 09:08, Bob Latham wrote:
>>
>> In article <10vnmh1$36cu1$2@dont-email.me>,
>>     J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> 
> [Many big snips in the quote chain]

I'm not sure what you meant by that; certainly, in any followup I post,
I take quite a lot of care to ensure the attribution lines remain so
that it is clear who said what.
> 
> WHOOSH!  Obviously the entire discussion above went way over your head.
> 
What, you mean the thread about "Broadband Over Mobile Network" in the
newsgroup "uk.telecom.broadband" that had been perverted into a rant
against Twitter/X and its owners (I have no love of them - or, most of
the time, their detractors either), having no relevance to either the
subject or the newsgroup?

I too am not innocent of contributing to thread wander. But at least I
don't criticise others who do so!
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Veni, Vidi, Video (I came, I saw, I'll watch it again later)
- Mik from S+AS Limited (mik@saslimited.demon.co.uk), 1998

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

#57352

On 2026-06-04 00:06, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> On 2026/6/3 13:58:48, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 2026-06-03 09:08, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <10vnmh1$36cu1$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>      J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>> [Many big snips in the quote chain]
>>
>> WHOOSH!  Obviously the entire discussion above went way over your head.

[Another snip]

You seem to have missed the fact that I was replying to Bob Lie-To-Them, 
not you :-)

-- 

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website: 
www.macfh.co.uk

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

#57354

On 2026/6/4 3:32:18, Java Jive wrote:
> On 2026-06-04 00:06, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> On 2026/6/3 13:58:48, Java Jive wrote:
>>> On 2026-06-03 09:08, Bob Latham wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In article <10vnmh1$36cu1$2@dont-email.me>,
>>>>      J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> [Many big snips in the quote chain]
>>>
>>> WHOOSH!  Obviously the entire discussion above went way over your head.
> 
> [Another snip]
> 
> You seem to have missed the fact that I was replying to Bob Lie-To-Them, 
> not you :-)
> 
Ah, sorry about that. Yes, it's easy to get who-said-what wrong!
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

When I was young, I was poor. Now, after years of hard work, I am no
longer young.

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

#57244

On 17/05/2026 11:08, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> 
> I've started a separate thread on this following my thread on Plusnet -v-
> EE.
> 
> I started investigating available packages and despite banner headlines of
> "Full Fibre" only FTTC is available here. I could spit on the BT and
> Giganet manhole covers from my lounge (if I was so vulgar) but they are
> apparently the wrong sort of manhole. There are 4 houses here served by a
> private drive (not owned by any of us) and that seems to be  blocking point.
> 
> I then looked at FTTC (which I have currently) and the packages all offer
> a max speed of 14 Mb/s so I did a speed test. I am getting 12 Mb/s, it was
> 30 when I first moved here 4 years ago but the introduction of full fibre
> seems to have slowed it down!
> 
> I then looked at broadband over the mobile network. I can get 4G indoors
> from EE but no 5G here. I went to the EE website and they offer both with
> reasonable speeds (higher than I am currently getting) and prices. I
> worked through their website, clicked all the 4G buttons and ended up on a
> page headed "4G WiFi" which contains a list of 5G packages.
> 
> When I tried the help links they suggest going to an EE shop, nothing
> online.
> 
> I know I am getting old but how on earth does a customer find out what the
> heck is going on?

Do you know anyone with an EE smartphone who can see what the actual 
up/down speeds are from various places inside your house, perhaps on 
more than one occasion? I'm on Vodafone here (4G), and the speed test 
I've just run was 21Mbps down and 5 up. It has been up to 26/7, but can 
be a bit odd. A couple of months ago I could get a slowish speed (2/0.5) 
first thing around 0630, but by 1000 the connection had gone completely 
and the internet was unavailable. Phone and SMS worked without problem, 
as did wifi via landline (so not the phone). The problem lasted about a 
month, but then resolved for some reason.

-- 
Jeff

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | uk.telecom.broadband

csiph-web