https://uk.news.yahoo.com/finance/news/nationwide-switch-digital-landlines-less-155331532.html
Landlines are being upgraded she says, there will be no extra cost, and
it's as easy as unplugging your phone and plugging it in again. BT will
guide you, and support you. Keep your existing phone number. It's all
easy. (My Openreach subcontractor ran away while the router was still
booting itself).
If you are not with BT of course, brace yourself, you are in for a rocky ride, and you may end up with no phone line for at least a week, maybe forever.
David Wade <dave@g4ugm.invalid> writes:
I don't think the supplier matters. BT are as capable, indeed some may
say more capable of fubar-ing any upgrade, downgrade or service
change.
I am puzzled by the no extra cost bit, as for me there was the extra
cost of fibre. Maybe if you have no broadband there is no extra cost.
If you live in some remote place in Scotland...Uses the "more reliable digital landlines" claim again. I can't
https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/real-danger-landline-phone-users-060017407.html
On 2026/5/3 13:1:26, Richmond wrote:
If you live in some remote place in Scotland...Uses the "more reliable digital landlines" claim again. I can't
https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/real-danger-landline-phone-users-060017407.html
remember ever having any problem with my existing line - but plenty with
my power.
From https://digitalphoneswitchover.com/: "The change from analogue to digital will benefit everyone" - so far, I don't see it benefitting me.
From <https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-and-broadband/landline-phones/future-of-landline-calls>:
"If you are dependent on your landline phone rCo for example, if you donrCOt have a mobile phone or donrCOt have mobile signal at your home rCo your provider must offer you a solution to make sure you can contact the
emergency services when a power cut occurs. For example, a mobile phone
(if you have signal), or a battery back-up unit for your landline
phone." *"for example, if you donrCOt have a mobile phone"* - that
_states_ that just not having a mobile qualifies as being "dependent on
your landline phone". And one of the things they can do is provide you
with a mobile (if you have signal)?
There are other statements in that last document that clash with what
we've learnt - mainly confusion over what "dependent" means. Some that _don't_ even use the word.
<https://www.gov.uk/guidance/telecommunications-modernisation-connectivity-timeline>:
"All users of the Openreach PSTN will need to be migrated to new
services by the 31 January 2027."
Well there are two items of note. The first is that as newer internet services no longer require a landline customers are ditching them as
fast as they can, while the cost of maintaining the infrastructure is
going up as it ages. So if the existing copper land lines were to be
retained the price would have to rise substantially, at which point
more customers would ditch them, so the price would rise again.
the price rose substantially anyway for me, as I was told if I did
not switch to fibre I would lose my internet and phone. The fibre was
full fibre to the premises only, so I had to pay about 70% more.
Richmond wrote:
the price rose substantially anyway for me, as I was told if I did
not switch to fibre I would lose my internet and phone. The fibre was
full fibre to the premises only, so I had to pay about 70% more.
I've not got the option to migrate from FTTC to FTTP yet, but have
moved from POTS to VoIP. I'm under the impression that the base FTTP
price is the same as FTTC, did you pay 70% more because of being
upsold to a faster version of full-fibre?
You may have noticed someone in the firefox group saying they couldn't
reach a website. Nobody knew why. It was possible to work around it with
VPN. That's the kind of thing which will happen with VOIP, it will stop working, no one will know why, no one will know who is responsible.
On 04/05/2026 15:42, Richmond wrote:
You may have noticed someone in the firefox group saying they couldn't reach a website. Nobody knew why. It was possible to work around it with VPN. That's the kind of thing which will happen with VOIP, it will stop working, no one will know why, no one will know who is responsible.
So pretty much like POTS then ?
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TUVeVvnsgE>
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 04/05/2026 15:42, Richmond wrote:
You may have noticed someone in the firefox group saying they couldn't
reach a website. Nobody knew why. It was possible to work around it with >> > VPN. That's the kind of thing which will happen with VOIP, it will stop
working, no one will know why, no one will know who is responsible.
So pretty much like POTS then ?
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TUVeVvnsgE>
That was before Y2K, which also turned out to be a non-problem
that fixed itself.
That was before Y2K, which also turned out to be a non-problem
that fixed itself.
On 05/05/2026 23:23, Sn!pe wrote:
That was before Y2K, which also turned out to be a non-problem
that fixed itself.
I'm pretty sure that many thousands of man days went into fixing it;
there was no automatic fixing, and it all needed to be planned and scheduled.
On Tue, 5 May 2026 23:23:09 +0100, snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 04/05/2026 15:42, Richmond wrote:
You may have noticed someone in the firefox group saying they couldn't >> > reach a website. Nobody knew why. It was possible to work around it with >> > VPN. That's the kind of thing which will happen with VOIP, it will stop >> > working, no one will know why, no one will know who is responsible.
So pretty much like POTS then ?
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TUVeVvnsgE>
That was before Y2K, which also turned out to be a non-problem
that fixed itself.
I know it's still the monring, but that's the most ill-informed
statement I've read so far today, and I doubt it will be topped.
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2026 23:23:09 +0100, snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 04/05/2026 15:42, Richmond wrote:
You may have noticed someone in the firefox group saying they couldn't >>>>> reach a website. Nobody knew why. It was possible to work around it with >>>>> VPN. That's the kind of thing which will happen with VOIP, it will stop >>>>> working, no one will know why, no one will know who is responsible.
So pretty much like POTS then ?
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TUVeVvnsgE>
That was before Y2K, which also turned out to be a non-problem
that fixed itself.
I know it's still the monring, but that's the most ill-informed
statement I've read so far today, and I doubt it will be topped.
It was a tongue in cheek joke. ree:o)
On 05/05/2026 23:23, Sn!pe wrote:
That was before Y2K, which also turned out to be a non-problem
that fixed itself.
I'm pretty sure that many thousands of man days went into fixing it;
there was no automatic fixing, and it all needed to be planned and scheduled.
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2026 23:23:09 +0100, snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 04/05/2026 15:42, Richmond wrote:
You may have noticed someone in the firefox group saying they couldn't >> >> > reach a website. Nobody knew why. It was possible to work around it with
VPN. That's the kind of thing which will happen with VOIP, it will stop >> >> > working, no one will know why, no one will know who is responsible.
So pretty much like POTS then ?
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TUVeVvnsgE>
That was before Y2K, which also turned out to be a non-problem
that fixed itself.
I know it's still the monring, but that's the most ill-informed
statement I've read so far today, and I doubt it will be topped.
It was a tongue in cheek joke. ?:o)
Trolleybus <ken@birchanger.com> wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2026 23:23:09 +0100, snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 04/05/2026 15:42, Richmond wrote:
You may have noticed someone in the firefox group saying they couldn't >> >> > reach a website. Nobody knew why. It was possible to work around it with
VPN. That's the kind of thing which will happen with VOIP, it will stop >> >> > working, no one will know why, no one will know who is responsible.
So pretty much like POTS then ?
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TUVeVvnsgE>
That was before Y2K, which also turned out to be a non-problem
that fixed itself.
I know it's still the monring, but that's the most ill-informed
statement I've read so far today, and I doubt it will be topped.
It was a tongue in cheek joke. ???:o)
That was before Y2K, which also turned out to be a non-problem
that fixed itself.
I know it's still the monring, but that's the most ill-informed
statement I've read so far today, and I doubt it will be topped.
It was a tongue in cheek joke. ree:o)
I'm glad I read on before following up!!!! A bit touchy about it sorry -
have had many an argument with a brother-in-law who insists it was a non-problem.
Jim Jackson <jj@franjam.org.uk> wrote:
[...]
That was before Y2K, which also turned out to be a non-problem
that fixed itself.
I know it's still the monring, but that's the most ill-informed
statement I've read so far today, and I doubt it will be topped.
It was a tongue in cheek joke. ree:o)
I'm glad I read on before following up!!!! A bit touchy about it sorry -
have had many an argument with a brother-in-law who insists it was a
non-problem.
Not a problem, Jim. An erstwhile poster acquaintance of mine in a
now defunct group did a great deal of hard work on Y2K to make it
a 'non-problem' so I do understand how you must feel about it.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 06:11:38 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
921 files (14,318M bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,699 |