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 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#57238 — Broadband Over Mobile Network

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?

-- 
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#57239

Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> 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?
> 

Starlink. 40 GBP/month, 100 Mbit/sec download. (It seems to have gone up in
price recently). 

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

#57242

On 2026/5/17 12:5:14, Tweed wrote:
[]
> Starlink. 40 GBP/month, 100 Mbit/sec download. (It seems to have gone up in
> price recently). 
> 
Do they offer any sort of 'phone service? (I know I could use a VoIP
provider [assuming that still works over Starlink]; was just wondering
if they had their own system for voice [and maybe texts].)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

It's easy to blame others for your own failures.
No, really Try it.
- joke section back of Russian newspaper - Steve Rosenberg, 2026-5-12

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

#57243

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> On 2026/5/17 12:5:14, Tweed wrote:
> []
>> Starlink. 40 GBP/month, 100 Mbit/sec download. (It seems to have gone up in
>> price recently). 
>> 
> Do they offer any sort of 'phone service? (I know I could use a VoIP
> provider [assuming that still works over Starlink]; was just wondering
> if they had their own system for voice [and maybe texts].)

No. Just an Internet connection. 

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

#57277

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> 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?
>> 
> 
> Starlink. 40 GBP/month, 100 Mbit/sec download. (It seems to have gone up in
> price recently). 

Well, Musk has got to get trillionaire status somehow!

Alternatively, he could actually afford to give starlink to everyone for
free. 

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

#57281

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> 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?
>>> 
>> 
>> Starlink. 40 GBP/month, 100 Mbit/sec download. (It seems to have gone up in
>> price recently). 
> 
> Well, Musk has got to get trillionaire status somehow!
> 
> Alternatively, he could actually afford to give starlink to everyone for
> free. 
> 
> 
Whatever the thoughts about the owner, the system is game changing for
many. Isolated communities all over the planet are suddenly able to
connect. I even noticed one on a food van at the Malvern flower show the
other day. 

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

#57291

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> 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?
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Starlink. 40 GBP/month, 100 Mbit/sec download. (It seems to have gone up in
>>> price recently). 
>> 
>> Well, Musk has got to get trillionaire status somehow!
>> 
>> Alternatively, he could actually afford to give starlink to everyone for
>> free. 
>> 
>> 
> Whatever the thoughts about the owner, the system is game changing for
> many. Isolated communities all over the planet are suddenly able to
> connect. I even noticed one on a food van at the Malvern flower show the
> other day. 

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. 

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

#57308

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.

Bob.

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

#57309

On 2026-05-25 10:10, Bob Latham 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.

Examples abound.  These are some of the ones that most immediately occur 
to me ...

Changing X's algorithms to favour a convicted felon in the presidential 
race, because that felon promised him lower taxes on his fortune.

Early on in the Ukraine war during a Ukrainian sea drone raid on Crimea, 
he colluded with the Russians to disable the Starlink receivers being 
used in the raid, with the result that substantially it failed.

It took three years for Ukraine to persuade him to take actions against 
the Starlink receivers being used illegitimately by Russians, only 
taking action when it was pointed out to him that they were being used 
to target Shahed drones onto civilian targets, and thus were being used 
to commit war crimes.

As head of DOGE, he was responsible for emasculating the US government's 
ability to control itself and keep within constitutional law at home, 
and project 'soft power' abroad.  An example of the former, which also 
benefited Musk and/or his companies directly, is here ...

https://www.epi.org/blog/corruption-in-plain-sight-how-elon-musk-has-benefited-from-the-first-100-days-of-the-trump-administration/

... while for a soft power example you need look no further than the 
infamous "US supplies condoms to Gaza!!!" debacle, with Musk trumpeting 
this alleged 'finding' of DOGE, while failing to mention that the Gaza 
in question was in Africa, and the condoms being supplied were the 
cheapest way to help control the spread of AIDS.

And of course, with the usual caveats, there's always AI ...

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-e&q=why+is+Elon+Musk+immoral

Etc, etc, etc.

-- 

Fake news kills!

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

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

#57310

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. 

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. 

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

#57311

On 27/05/2026 in message <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me> Chris wrote:

>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.
>
>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.

Those may be reasons for you to consider him immoral but everybody is 
entitled to their own opinion which may well be different to yours.

>I'm also increasingly of the opinion that all billionaires are immoral by
>definition.

That's just socialist dogma, they hate successful people, no prole, no 
votes.

Anyway this sort of political stuff is way OTT for this group so no more 
from me.

-- 
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF
if you can read this, you're a nerd 10.

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

#57315

Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 27/05/2026 in message <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me> Chris wrote:
> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> Those may be reasons for you to consider him immoral but everybody is 
> entitled to their own opinion which may well be different to yours.
> 
>> I'm also increasingly of the opinion that all billionaires are immoral by
>> definition.
> 
> That's just socialist dogma, they hate successful people, no prole, no 
> votes.

Plenty of evidence in support of this argument. Not dogma. 

> Anyway this sort of political stuff is way OTT for this group so no more 
> from me.
> 

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

#57312

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.

Bob.

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

#57314

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

He's immoral by any definition. People not accepting that says more about
them then anything else. 

> 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.

Asking people to be decent and not abuse their position is not a
superiority complex. 

> Thanks for answering the question.
> 
> Bob.
> 
> 

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

#57318

In article <10v6phk$2or22$1@dont-email.me>,
   Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> > In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,

> > 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.


I note the subtle ad hominem put in place there on only the second
sentence. The left wing playbook.

But I'm more than happy to accept that I don't hold left wing views. 

Okay I'll tell you what I find deeply immoral.

Taking the heating allowance off pensioners when Labour's own think
tank advised how many thousands this would kill but they did it
anyway until there was a fuss the next year. Their excuse was that it
would cause 'a run on the pound'. This, a week after giving £11.5B of
UK tax payer money to Africa to help with 'climate change'.

Taking the right of trial by jury away from many trials to allow
activist judges to jail people with 'wrong think' more easily.

Trying to allow abortion up to the day before birth.

Letting off people who commit serious sexual offences but jailing
people for hurty words.

Lying to the public continuously about their intentions on..

- Lowering fuel prices.

- Pretending they're protecting children on the internet when in
reality they're removing the right of anonymity and forcing digital
ID.

- Not dragging us back into the EU.


Betraying farmers, waspi-women.
Appointing the twice sacked "Prince of darkness" to high office yet
again. The clue is in the name.

Allowing large marches through London each weekend for months calling
for the extermination of a nation state "from the River to the sea"
and the globalisation of the intifada. Policing minimal, it's fine.  


VAT on private schools
105 independent schools closed.
Average 550 pupils and 200 staff
21,000 adults out of work.
57,750 pupils now in state education
£430M additional cost to the state.
Over £1B in lost taxes and revenue.
   Absolute peak socialist stupidity.


And the worst of all!

Doing everything they possibly can to make sure the people
responsible for the rape and cover up of nearly 250,000 UK girls
never get dealt with. Refusing an enquiry and then dragged kicking
and screaming to agree to an enquiry only to drag it and destroy the
thing on scope and other issues. Protecting their own more important
than our girls. 

That alone is top trumps, not just immoral, more evil.
 
Now that's what I call immoral and I've hardly scratched the surface.


> Asking people to be decent and not abuse their position is not a
> superiority complex. 

Oh indeed but the current government fails spectacularly on that.

Bob.

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

#57319

Is there any point in labelling things as left or right? That will only
mean being opposed to things because they are left or right. A better
question is what works best, a private telephone network or a public
one? The private water company doesn't seem to be a good idea to me as I
cannot change water companies, so where is the competition?

Digital ID is definately a bad idea. Civil Liberties used to be
considered left wing, but now is considered right wing.

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

#57320

Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <10v6phk$2or22$1@dont-email.me>,
>    Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> 
> I note the subtle ad hominem put in place there on only the second
> sentence. The left wing playbook.
> 
> But I'm more than happy to accept that I don't hold left wing views. 
> 
> Okay I'll tell you what I find deeply immoral.

<snip>

Nice attempt at whataboutism. You refuse to acknowledge anything I raised
and simply palmed it off as left-wing dogma. 

Now you what me to engage with your political rant that no-one asked for.
lol. 

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

#57321

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <10v6phk$2or22$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,
>> 
>>>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> I note the subtle ad hominem put in place there on only the second
>> sentence. The left wing playbook.
>> 
>> But I'm more than happy to accept that I don't hold left wing views. 
>> 
>> Okay I'll tell you what I find deeply immoral.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Nice attempt at whataboutism. You refuse to acknowledge anything I raised
> and simply palmed it off as left-wing dogma. 
> 
> Now you what me to engage with your political rant that no-one asked for.
> lol. 
> 

Amazon’s LEO system will be along towards the end of the year. 
PS Anyone objecting to Amazon had better give up using the Internet now
given that a very significant chunk of the world’s computing infrastructure
is hosted by Amazon. Around a third.

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

#57322

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <10v6phk$2or22$1@dont-email.me>,
>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>> In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,

>>>> 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.

>> I note the subtle ad hominem put in place there on only the second
>> sentence. The left wing playbook.

>> But I'm more than happy to accept that I don't hold left wing views. 

>> Okay I'll tell you what I find deeply immoral.

> <snip>

> Nice attempt at whataboutism. You refuse to acknowledge anything I raised
> and simply palmed it off as left-wing dogma. 

> Now you what me to engage with your political rant that no-one asked for.
> lol. 

You gave Bob an example of what you find to be immoral, and he responded in
kind. It’s nothing to do with ’whataboutery’, it’s merely an exchange of
views.

-- 
Spike

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

#57325

Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>> In article <10v6phk$2or22$1@dont-email.me>,
>>> Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,
> 
>>>>> 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.
> 
>>> I note the subtle ad hominem put in place there on only the second
>>> sentence. The left wing playbook.
> 
>>> But I'm more than happy to accept that I don't hold left wing views. 
> 
>>> Okay I'll tell you what I find deeply immoral.
> 
>> <snip>
> 
>> Nice attempt at whataboutism. You refuse to acknowledge anything I raised
>> and simply palmed it off as left-wing dogma. 
> 
>> Now you what me to engage with your political rant that no-one asked for.
>> lol. 
> 
> You gave Bob an example of what you find to be immoral, and he responded in
> kind. It’s nothing to do with ’whataboutery’, it’s merely an exchange of
> views.

He asked specifically about Elon Musk, which is what I responded to. He's
broadened this to right vs left political rhetoric without engaging with
any point I raised. Disingenuous at best. 

This is now massively OT and not worth continuing. 

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web