I notice that BT are being a bit more accurate with their description of fibre connections. They seem to now call it "part fibre technology?"
with a little diagram showing the fibre from the exchange to the cabinet then some having fibre and some copper to the premises.
I notice that BT are being a bit more accurate with their description of fibre connections.-a They seem to now call it "part fibre technology?"
with a little diagram showing the fibre from the exchange to the cabinet then some having fibre and some copper to the premises.
On 18/01/2026 09:14, JMB99 wrote:
I notice that BT are being a bit more accurate with their description ofwell yes, they want rid of it. The cabs delivering it are getting old.
fibre connections.-a They seem to now call it "part fibre technology?"
with a little diagram showing the fibre from the exchange to the cabinet
then some having fibre and some copper to the premises.
They need power for which BT pays. If FTTP is available they want people
to switch. The problem is for most the FTTC speeds are fine so the
upgrade is a hard sell...
Dave
On 18/01/2026 09:14, JMB99 wrote:
I notice that BT are being a bit more accurate with their description ofwell yes, they want rid of it. The cabs delivering it are getting old.
fibre connections.a They seem to now call it "part fibre technology?"
with a little diagram showing the fibre from the exchange to the cabinet
then some having fibre and some copper to the premises.
They need power for which BT pays. If FTTP is available they want people
to switch. The problem is for most the FTTC speeds are fine so the
upgrade is a hard sell...
On 2026/1/18 10:34:17, David Wade wrote:
On 18/01/2026 09:14, JMB99 wrote:
I notice that BT are being a bit more accurate with their description of >>> fibre connections.-a They seem to now call it "part fibre technology?"well yes, they want rid of it. The cabs delivering it are getting old.
with a little diagram showing the fibre from the exchange to the cabinet >>> then some having fibre and some copper to the premises.
They need power for which BT pays. If FTTP is available they want people
to switch. The problem is for most the FTTC speeds are fine so the
upgrade is a hard sell...
Dave
I'm sure the content providers can help them out there - I suspect the average size of a web page (even one with no images) passed a megabyte,
with all the scripts (not to mention inefficient code) some years ago;
it won't be that many years until FTTC speeds seem noticeably lethargic,
even for a single non-streaming user like me :-( .
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 10:34:17 +0000, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid>
wrote:
On 18/01/2026 09:14, JMB99 wrote:
I notice that BT are being a bit more accurate with their description of >> fibre connections.-a They seem to now call it "part fibre technology?"well yes, they want rid of it. The cabs delivering it are getting old. >They need power for which BT pays. If FTTP is available they want people >to switch. The problem is for most the FTTC speeds are fine so the
with a little diagram showing the fibre from the exchange to the cabinet >> then some having fibre and some copper to the premises.
upgrade is a hard sell...
I would agree. I moved house recently. My previous FTTC was about 76
Mbps and FTTP here is 102 Mbps. Quite honestly, I have not noticed any difference.
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2026 10:34:17 +0000, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid>
wrote:
On 18/01/2026 09:14, JMB99 wrote:I would agree. I moved house recently. My previous FTTC was about 76
I notice that BT are being a bit more accurate with their description of >>>> fibre connections.-a They seem to now call it "part fibre technology?" >>>> with a little diagram showing the fibre from the exchange to the cabinet >>>> then some having fibre and some copper to the premises.well yes, they want rid of it. The cabs delivering it are getting old.
They need power for which BT pays. If FTTP is available they want people >>> to switch. The problem is for most the FTTC speeds are fine so the
upgrade is a hard sell...
Mbps and FTTP here is 102 Mbps. Quite honestly, I have not noticed any
difference.
Can you really get 102Mb/s FTTP? The slowest that CityFibre offer is 160Mb/s.
Having said that I wouldn't expect you to notice much difference
between 76Mb/s and 102Mb/s, that's only a 30% or so improvement.
I certainly do notice the difference having recently moved from 70Mb/s
or so FTTC to 1Gb/s FTTP (or FTTH as CityFibre call it). System
updates and such take much less time, as does downloading system
images etc.
On 18/01/2026 09:14, JMB99 wrote:
I notice that BT are being a bit more accurate with their descriptionwell yes, they want rid of it. The cabs delivering it are getting old.
of fibre connections.-a They seem to now call it "part fibre
technology?" with a little diagram showing the fibre from the exchange
to the cabinet then some having fibre and some copper to the premises.
They need power for which BT pays. If FTTP is available they want people
to switch. The problem is for most the FTTC speeds are fine so the
upgrade is a hard sell...
well yes, they want rid of it. The cabs delivering it are getting old.
They need power for which BT pays. If FTTP is available they want people
to switch. The problem is for most the FTTC speeds are fine so the
upgrade is a hard sell...
On 18/01/2026 09:14, JMB99 wrote:
I notice that BT are being a bit more accurate with their descriptionwell yes, they want rid of it. The cabs delivering it are getting old.
of fibre connections.-a They seem to now call it "part fibre
technology?" with a little diagram showing the fibre from the exchange
to the cabinet then some having fibre and some copper to the premises.
They need power for which BT pays. If FTTP is available they want people
to switch. The problem is for most the FTTC speeds are fine so the
upgrade is a hard sell...
We have a phone line that has several branches off the master socket and
one goes to the router.
On 18/01/2026 10:34, David Wade wrote:
On 18/01/2026 09:14, JMB99 wrote:
I notice that BT are being a bit more accurate with their descriptionwell yes, they want rid of it. The cabs delivering it are getting old.
of fibre connections.-a They seem to now call it "part fibre
technology?" with a little diagram showing the fibre from the
exchange to the cabinet then some having fibre and some copper to the
premises.
They need power for which BT pays. If FTTP is available they want
people to switch. The problem is for most the FTTC speeds are fine so
the upgrade is a hard sell...
For us, the biggest problem with going to fibre would be how to get the internet connection to the router.
We have a phone line that has several branches off the master socket and
one goes to the router. Phone cables have already been installed in
trunking buried in the plaster to the various sockets.
If we have fibre installed, who is to know where it will enter the house
and therefore where they will install the fibre/Ethernet transceiver.
And therefore how we will run the WAN Ethernet from that location to the router which is positioned to give best wifi coverage and to allow LAN internet to TV, computer in my study etc, given that the most direct
route will probably take it across a hardwood floor which means that
flat Cat 5 can't just be tucked down the edges of carpets or under metal carpet-joining strips in doorways. We may have to route it up into the
loft (that part of the house is a bungalow), work out out to get it
through a breezeblock wall that separates different parts of the loft,
and then route it back down the living room wall behind surface trunking.
The best place for the transceiver would be in the living room from
which there is carpet to hide the cable... but there is no mains supply
to that wall of the house so running a spur from another mains socket
would mean lifting the carpet and digging out a channel in the concrete floor for the mains cable.
Wherever the transceiver is located, I will make damn sure that the WAN Ethernet cable is very clearly labelled so it doesn't ever get
accidentally plugged into the LAN, but only goes via the router and its NAT/DHCP, to provide WAN-LAN isolation.
The router does pppoe authentication, so if you plug the cable into the wrong port nothing happens. You just loose the connection.
NY wrote:
We have a phone line that has several branches off the master socket
and one goes to the router.
They'll upgrade the master socket, or install a new master socket in a reasonable place and ensure it works at the master, anything else
involving your wiring is up to you ...
On 18/01/2026 23:03, Andy Burns wrote:
NY wrote:
We have a phone line that has several branches off the master socket
and one goes to the router.
They'll upgrade the master socket, or install a new master socket in a
reasonable place and ensure it works at the master, anything else
involving your wiring is up to you ...
Also, assuming your extension wiring is CW1308 (2 pair) cabling, you can actually re-purpose it to carry 100 Mb/s Ethernet. Yes, I know the twist pitch etc is different to CAT, but IME it works fine.
The only downside of course is that FTTP services can provide >100 Mb/s,
but everyone on here has declared they don't need the extra speed that
FTTP provides....
On 19/01/2026 08:27, Mark Carver wrote:
On 18/01/2026 23:03, Andy Burns wrote:
NY wrote:
We have a phone line that has several branches off the master socket
and one goes to the router.
They'll upgrade the master socket, or install a new master socket in
a reasonable place and ensure it works at the master, anything else
involving your wiring is up to you ...
If its FTTP they won't touch the master socket.
Also, assuming your extension wiring is CW1308 (2 pair) cabling, you
can actually re-purpose it to carry 100 Mb/s Ethernet. Yes, I know the
twist pitch etc is different to CAT, but IME it works fine.
The only downside of course is that FTTP services can provide >100 Mb/
s, but everyone on here has declared they don't need the extra speed
that FTTP provides....
will the ONT port negotiate down to 100Mb/s?
On 18/01/2026 23:03, Andy Burns wrote:Technically, it's only rated for 10Mbps, and I've used it that way
NY wrote:
We have a phone line that has several branches off the master socket
and one goes to the router.
They'll upgrade the master socket, or install a new master socket in a
reasonable place and ensure it works at the master, anything else
involving your wiring is up to you ...
Also, assuming your extension wiring is CW1308 (2 pair) cabling, you can actually re-purpose it to carry 100 Mb/s Ethernet. Yes, I know the twist pitch etc is different to CAT, but IME it works fine.
On 19/01/2026 08:27, Mark Carver wrote:
On 18/01/2026 23:03, Andy Burns wrote:
NY wrote:
We have a phone line that has several branches off the master socket
and one goes to the router.
They'll upgrade the master socket, or install a new master socket in
a reasonable place and ensure it works at the master, anything else
involving your wiring is up to you ...
If its FTTP they won't touch the master socket.I thought they were happy to 're-inject' POTS from the router to the
On 19/01/2026 08:27, Mark Carver wrote:
On 18/01/2026 23:03, Andy Burns wrote:
NY wrote:
We have a phone line that has several branches off the master socket
and one goes to the router.
They'll upgrade the master socket, or install a new master socket in
a reasonable place and ensure it works at the master, anything else
involving your wiring is up to you ...
If its FTTP they won't touch the master socket.
Also, assuming your extension wiring is CW1308 (2 pair) cabling, you
can actually re-purpose it to carry 100 Mb/s Ethernet. Yes, I know the
twist pitch etc is different to CAT, but IME it works fine.
The only downside of course is that FTTP services can provide >100
Mb/s, but everyone on here has declared they don't need the extra
speed that FTTP provides....
will the ONT port negotiate down to 100Mb/s?
Dave--
Mark Carver wrote:
On 18/01/2026 23:03, Andy Burns wrote:Technically, it's only rated for 10Mbps, and I've used it that way
NY wrote:
We have a phone line that has several branches off the master socket
and one goes to the router.
They'll upgrade the master socket, or install a new master socket in
a reasonable place and ensure it works at the master, anything else
involving your wiring is up to you ...
Also, assuming your extension wiring is CW1308 (2 pair) cabling, you
can actually re-purpose it to carry 100 Mb/s Ethernet. Yes, I know the
twist pitch etc is different to CAT, but IME it works fine.
without pushing my luck for 100Mbps.
On 19/01/2026 10:51, Andy Burns wrote:
Mark Carver wrote:
On 18/01/2026 23:03, Andy Burns wrote:Technically, it's only rated for 10Mbps, and I've used it that way
NY wrote:
We have a phone line that has several branches off the master
socket and one goes to the router.
They'll upgrade the master socket, or install a new master socket in
a reasonable place and ensure it works at the master, anything else
involving your wiring is up to you ...
Also, assuming your extension wiring is CW1308 (2 pair) cabling, you
can actually re-purpose it to carry 100 Mb/s Ethernet. Yes, I know
the twist pitch etc is different to CAT, but IME it works fine.
without pushing my luck for 100Mbps.
I used it from the ground floor to the 3rd floorattic room in my lad's 'Young Ones' style student house, about 15 years ago. That was an ADSL2 connection and it rattled along at 13/14ish Mb/s I recall, (so must have negotiated at 100). However, as you suggest it's one of those '..if it works, it works...' type things !
On 18/01/2026 10:34, David Wade wrote:
On 18/01/2026 09:14, JMB99 wrote:
I notice that BT are being a bit more accurate with their descriptionwell yes, they want rid of it. The cabs delivering it are getting old.
of fibre connections.-a They seem to now call it "part fibre
technology?" with a little diagram showing the fibre from the exchange
to the cabinet then some having fibre and some copper to the premises.
They need power for which BT pays. If FTTP is available they want people
to switch. The problem is for most the FTTC speeds are fine so the
upgrade is a hard sell...
For us, the biggest problem with going to fibre would be how to get the internet connection to the router.
We have a phone line that has several branches off the master socket and
one goes to the router. Phone cables have already been installed in
trunking buried in the plaster to the various sockets.
If we have fibre installed, who is to know where it will enter the house
David Wade wrote:
On 19/01/2026 08:27, Mark Carver wrote:I thought they were happy to 're-inject' POTS from the router to the customer wiring that way?
On 18/01/2026 23:03, Andy Burns wrote:
NY wrote:
We have a phone line that has several branches off the master
socket and one goes to the router.
They'll upgrade the master socket, or install a new master socket in
a reasonable place and ensure it works at the master, anything else
involving your wiring is up to you ...
If its FTTP they won't touch the master socket.
They'll upgrade the master socket, or install a new master socket in a reasonable place and ensure it works at the master, anything else
involving your wiring is up to you ...
On 18/01/2026 23:03, Andy Burns wrote:
They'll upgrade the master socket, or install a new master socket in a
reasonable place and ensure it works at the master, anything else
involving your wiring is up to you ...
My understanding is that, for FTTP, and BT, the existing wiring will be abandoned.
On 19/01/2026 10:54, Andy Burns wrote:
David Wade wrote:oops yes, Thats what it says on the web...
On 19/01/2026 08:27, Mark Carver wrote:I thought they were happy to 're-inject' POTS from the router to the
On 18/01/2026 23:03, Andy Burns wrote:
NY wrote:
We have a phone line that has several branches off the master socket >>>>>> and one goes to the router.
They'll upgrade the master socket, or install a new master socket in a >>>>> reasonable place and ensure it works at the master, anything else
involving your wiring is up to you ...
If its FTTP they won't touch the master socket.
customer wiring that way?
https://www.bt.com/help/broadband/full-fibre/how-is-full-fibre-installed
.. but not sure how replacing a master with a secondary is an upgrade...
The problem is for most the FTTC speeds are fine so the upgrade is a
hard sell...
Are we talking here of when is a K not a K? When it is speed rating of course.
So is 102Mb 102million bits per second or is it 1024x1024x97(ish)?
On 18/01/2026 10:34, David Wade wrote:
The problem is for most the FTTC speeds are fine so the upgrade is a
hard sell...
The geeks and politicians think that everyone needs many gigabits speed
when many are quite content with much less.
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 18/01/2026 10:34, David Wade wrote:
The problem is for most the FTTC speeds are fine so the upgrade is a
hard sell...
The geeks and politicians think that everyone needs many gigabits speed
when many are quite content with much less.
Reliability is the most important aspect. After a three-hour power cut, there is now no emergency service.
Look at what Russia had been doing in Ukraine, they only have to wait
until the whole UK is on fibre and then they can hold us to ransome with nothing more than the threat of a few small conventional bombs planted
by agents.
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 18/01/2026 10:34, David Wade wrote:
The problem is for most the FTTC speeds are fine so the upgrade is a
hard sell...
The geeks and politicians think that everyone needs many gigabits speed
when many are quite content with much less.
Reliability is the most important aspect. After a three-hour power cut, >there is now no emergency service.
Look at what Russia had been doing in Ukraine, they only have to wait
until the whole UK is on fibre and then they can hold us to ransome with >nothing more than the threat of a few small conventional bombs planted
by agents.
On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 17:10:13 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 18/01/2026 10:34, David Wade wrote:
The problem is for most the FTTC speeds are fine so the upgrade is a
hard sell...
The geeks and politicians think that everyone needs many gigabits speed
when many are quite content with much less.
Reliability is the most important aspect. After a three-hour power cut, >there is now no emergency service.
Look at what Russia had been doing in Ukraine, they only have to wait
until the whole UK is on fibre and then they can hold us to ransome with >nothing more than the threat of a few small conventional bombs planted
by agents.
Would bombs be needed? Could the objective not be achieved by a cyber
attack?
On 2026/1/19 17:10:13, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Reliability is the most important aspect. After a three-hour power cut, there is now no emergency service.
Yes - I'd gain voicemail, but lose short dialling _and_ emergency cover.
Powers of 2 of storage (1024 squared, cubed, etc) are now measured in kibibytes, mebibytes, gibibytes, etc, abbreviation KiB, MiB, GiB, etc.
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2026/1/19 17:10:13, Liz Tuddenham wrote:You can have short dialling with many VOIP providers or VOIP/DECT
Reliability is the most important aspect. After a three-hour power
cut, there is now no emergency service.
Yes - I'd gain voicemail, but lose short dialling _and_ emergency
cover.
phones. It tends to be called 'call plan' or 'Dial Plan'.
Bauds is also misused, for bits per second, with decimal multipliers.
The actual baud rate for ADSL (ADSL2+, and VDSL2) is 4,000.
On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 21:29:41 +0000, David Woolley wrote:
Bauds is also misused, for bits per second, with decimal multipliers.
The actual baud rate for ADSL (ADSL2+, and VDSL2) is 4,000.
Whereas 'baud' actually means 'symbols persond', where a symbol might
carry one bit (in older equipment) or many more (in modern equipment).
On 19/01/2026 16:56, Theo wrote:
Powers of 2 of storage (1024 squared, cubed, etc) are now measured in kibibytes, mebibytes, gibibytes, etc, abbreviation KiB, MiB, GiB, etc.
I think it is more correct to say that there is a lobby for this
convention, but it is far from universal. I think the lobby is
particularly prevalent in open source OS development; I'm not sure I've ever seen it used in the description of more proprietary systems.
NVIDIA, as an example, don't seem to use it. Jedec, who are standards
body in microelectronics area, don't seem to use it, e.g. see <https://www.jedec.org/standards-documents/docs/jesd250d>.
Maybe it means dialling a local number
without using the dialing code?
According to Gemini there are 1.5 million people in the UK with a
landline phone but no internet. What's going to happen to them? How
would you go about transferring to VOIP if you don't have the internet
or a computer?
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2026/1/19 17:10:13, Liz Tuddenham wrote:You can have short dialling with many VOIP providers or VOIP/DECT
Reliability is the most important aspect. After a three-hour power cut, >>> there is now no emergency service.
Yes - I'd gain voicemail, but lose short dialling _and_ emergency cover.
phones. It tends to be called 'call plan' or 'Dial Plan'.
On 19/01/2026 21:38, Richmond wrote:
Maybe it means dialling a local number
without using the dialing code?
That's what I believe was meant.
According to Gemini there are 1.5 million people in the UK with a
landline phone but no internet. What's going to happen to them? How
would you go about transferring to VOIP if you don't have the internet
or a computer?
If they are on BT, they will be given a limited speed internet
connection, a hub, with a DECT base station, and a compatible DECT
cordless phone.
On 19/01/2026 21:38, Richmond wrote:
Maybe it means dialling a local number without using the dialingThat's what I believe was meant.
code?
According to Gemini there are 1.5 million people in the UK with a
landline phone but no internet. What's going to happen to them? How
would you go about transferring to VOIP if you don't have the
internet or a computer?
If they are on BT, they will be given a limited speed internet
connection, a hub, with a DECT base station, and a compatible DECT
cordless phone. I'm not 100% sure, but I think they will have access
to internet data, but at a very limited speed.
That was the original position, although it looks like, in some cases,
BT will continue to provide copper access, but gatewayed to Digital
Voice at the exchange. This is a stop gap service and looks like it
was only announced last year. The following document is aimed at
resellers, not end users: <https://www.bt.com/bt-plc/assets/documents/special-services/pdpl-wholesale-product-handbook.pdf>.
David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> writes:
On 19/01/2026 21:38, Richmond wrote:
Maybe it means dialling a local number without using the dialingThat's what I believe was meant.
code?
According to Gemini there are 1.5 million people in the UK with a
landline phone but no internet. What's going to happen to them? How
would you go about transferring to VOIP if you don't have the
internet or a computer?
If they are on BT, they will be given a limited speed internet
connection, a hub, with a DECT base station, and a compatible DECT
cordless phone. I'm not 100% sure, but I think they will have access
to internet data, but at a very limited speed.
That was the original position, although it looks like, in some cases,
BT will continue to provide copper access, but gatewayed to Digital
Voice at the exchange. This is a stop gap service and looks like it
was only announced last year. The following document is aimed at
resellers, not end users:
<https://www.bt.com/bt-plc/assets/documents/special-services/pdpl-wholesale-product-handbook.pdf>.
I get the impression from that document it will only apply to BT
Customers, not to customers who use BT lines through a reseller. And
what about Talk Talk, or customers who use Talk Talk through a reseller? Maybe they all have broadband.
I get the impression from that document it will only apply to BT
Customers, not to customers who use BT lines through a reseller.
but lose short dialling
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 17:10:13 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 18/01/2026 10:34, David Wade wrote:
The problem is for most the FTTC speeds are fine so the upgrade is a >>>>> hard sell...
The geeks and politicians think that everyone needs many gigabits speed >>>> when many are quite content with much less.
Reliability is the most important aspect. After a three-hour power cut, >>> there is now no emergency service.
Look at what Russia had been doing in Ukraine, they only have to wait
until the whole UK is on fibre and then they can hold us to ransome with >>> nothing more than the threat of a few small conventional bombs planted
by agents.
Would bombs be needed? Could the objective not be achieved by a cyber
attack?
A power cut would achieve that too - internet, gas water supply and
sewage pumping would all be out of action. So would 'smart; electronic
fuel pumps, so there would be no transport for food or emergencies after
a few days.
According to Gemini there are 1.5 million people in the UK with a
landline phone but no internet. What's going to happen to them?
On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 23:06:38 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 21:29:41 +0000, David Woolley wrote:
Bauds is also misused, for bits per second, with decimal multipliers.
The actual baud rate for ADSL (ADSL2+, and VDSL2) is 4,000.
Whereas 'baud' actually means 'symbols persond', where a symbol might
carry one bit (in older equipment) or many more (in modern equipment).
*per second !
Isnt it possible in VOIP setup to *add* a local dial code to numbers
less than 8 digits etc.?
On 20/01/2026 12:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Isnt it possible in VOIP setup to *add* a local dial code to numbers
less than 8 digits etc.?
There would be no technical reason for restricting dial codes to a geographical area smaller than that covered by one exchange, and 21CN exchanges will serve many traditional local area codes.
Reliability is the most important aspect. After a three-hour power cut, there is now no emergency service.
Look at what Russia had been doing in Ukraine, they only have to wait
until the whole UK is on fibre and then they can hold us to ransome with nothing more than the threat of a few small conventional bombs planted
by agents.
A power cut would achieve that too - internet, gas water supply and
sewage pumping would all be out of action. So would 'smart; electronic
fuel pumps, so there would be no transport for food or emergencies after
a few days.
just like people choose to
measure things in inches, gallons and stones.
On 19/01/2026 17:36, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
but lose short dialling
Isnt it possible in VOIP setup to *add* a local dial code to numbers
less than 8 digits etc.?
On 19/01/2026 19:25, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
A power cut would achieve that too - internet, gas water supply and
sewage pumping would all be out of action.-a So would 'smart; electronic
fuel pumps, so there would be no transport for food or emergencies after
a few days.
I am always amused by people with gas or oil central heating who are surprised when it stops working when the mains electricity supply fails!
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:Obviously emergency calls and well known numbers would not be prefixed.
On 19/01/2026 17:36, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
but lose short dialling
Isnt it possible in VOIP setup to *add* a local dial code to numbers
less than 8 digits etc.?
Yes but no. Losing short dialling means they can expand the number space
by using previously-reserved short codes.
eg they could now issue 01234 999123 without worrying about calling the emergency services. Similarly lots of 01234 1xxxxx numbers become
available.
If you just dialled 999 without the prefix then your VOIP system would
assume you were calling an ambulance, not someone in Bedford.
Theo
On 20/01/2026 00:19, Theo wrote:
just like people choose to
measure things in inches, gallons and stones.
Are there alternatives?
On 19/01/2026 17:10, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Reliability is the most important aspect.-a After a three-hour power cut,
there is now no emergency service.
Look at what Russia had been doing in Ukraine, they only have to wait
until the whole UK is on fibre and then they can hold us to ransome with
nothing more than the threat of a few small conventional bombs planted
by agents.
Perhaps a slight exaggeration but the earlier emergency service systems
used to have several weeks resilience from diesel generators (which
could of course be refuelled).
This has been important on several occasions, one of the worst being
when the grid was taken out in Kintyre by storms blowing pylons down.
Made worse by the roads contractor using mobile phone for comms - they
also previously had diesel maintained base stations so weeks of endurance.
On 20/01/2026 13:57, JMB99 wrote:
On 19/01/2026 19:25, Liz Tuddenham wrote:My Aga still works :-)
A power cut would achieve that too - internet, gas water supply and
sewage pumping would all be out of action.-a So would 'smart; electronic >>> fuel pumps, so there would be no transport for food or emergencies after >>> a few days.
I am always amused by people with gas or oil central heating who are
surprised when it stops working when the mains electricity supply fails!
On Tue 20/01/2026 13:58, JMB99 wrote:Well, so far ... but you-know-who will soon make them illegal. As "un-American", to use a phrase from a while back ...
On 20/01/2026 00:19, Theo wrote:
just like people choose to
measure things in inches, gallons and stones.
Are there alternatives?
Er, it was always pointed out to me that there can be many options but
only one alternative.
On 19/01/2026 21:38, Richmond wrote:
According to Gemini there are 1.5 million people in the UK with a
landline phone but no internet. What's going to happen to them?
When I was a boy there were 40 million people without either.
We didn't die.
Curiously I notice that if I dial a 'local' number on the same exchange
as me complete with dialling code, it connects amazingly quickly
compared with just dialling the same number without dialling code, and
this on a 'normal' copper pair telephone line without B/B on it.
On 19/01/2026 09:38, David Wade wrote:
will the ONT port negotiate down to 100Mb/s?
It should do if it's a compliant Ethernet device. However, I was
suggesting using the redundant CW1308 to provide Ethernet to remote
rooms, and not for the ONT to main router link
On 19/01/2026 19:25, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 17:10:13 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Nothing easier to damage than acres of windmills and solar panels...Reliability is the most important aspect. After a three-hour power cut, >>>> there is now no emergency service.
Look at what Russia had been doing in Ukraine, they only have to wait
until the whole UK is on fibre and then they can hold us to ransome with >>>> nothing more than the threat of a few small conventional bombs planted >>>> by agents.
Would bombs be needed? Could the objective not be achieved by a cyber
attack?
A power cut would achieve that too - internet, gas water supply and
sewage pumping would all be out of action. So would 'smart; electronic
fuel pumps, so there would be no transport for food or emergencies after
a few days.
On 2026/1/20 8:25:44, Woody wrote:
[]
Curiously I notice that if I dial a 'local' number on the same exchange
as me complete with dialling code, it connects amazingly quickly
compared with just dialling the same number without dialling code, and
this on a 'normal' copper pair telephone line without B/B on it.
I take it you're not using a pulse 'phone :-)
Well, so far ... but you-know-who will soon make them illegal. As "un-American", to use a phrase from a while back ...
On 20/01/2026 18:39, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Well, so far ... but you-know-who will soon make them illegal. As
"un-American", to use a phrase from a while back ...
But most are used in the US though differ slightly from Imperial.
If anything it is metric that is un-American.
On Tue 20/01/2026 18:47, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/1/20 8:25:44, Woody wrote:
[]
Curiously I notice that if I dial a 'local' number on the same exchange
as me complete with dialling code, it connects amazingly quickly
compared with just dialling the same number without dialling code, and
this on a 'normal' copper pair telephone line without B/B on it.
I take it you're not using a pulse 'phone :-)
You can because they still work (believe it or not!)
David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
On 19/01/2026 16:56, Theo wrote:
Powers of 2 of storage (1024 squared, cubed, etc) are now
measured in kibibytes, mebibytes, gibibytes, etc, abbreviation
KiB, MiB, GiB, etc.
I think it is more correct to say that there is a lobby for this convention, but it is far from universal. I think the lobby is particularly prevalent in open source OS development; I'm not sure
I've ever seen it used in the description of more proprietary
systems. NVIDIA, as an example, don't seem to use it. Jedec, who
are standards body in microelectronics area, don't seem to use it,
e.g. see <https://www.jedec.org/standards-documents/docs/jesd250d>.
The 'lobby' in question being IEC 60027-2 A.2 and ISO/IEC
80000:13-2025, as well as the BIPM, NIST and the EU. ISO 80000 is
'the' standard that defines the standard units.
Of course people can choose not to use it, just like people choose to
measure things in inches, gallons and stones.
Theo
There was a reference yesterday on BBC News to a measurement of 0.7
feet. Easy to visualise!
On 21/01/2026 08:41, Davey wrote:
There was a reference yesterday on BBC News to a measurement of 0.7
feet. Easy to visualise!
I have to think very hard any time a measurement is given in metric and >usually just do not bother.
I would struggle to make sense of 21.336 cm.
Always amused when someone has said that something is a 'couple of feet' >then someone back in the studio wants to be Politically Correct and
converts that to 60.96 cm
On 21/01/2026 08:41, Davey wrote:
There was a reference yesterday on BBC News to a measurement of 0.7
feet. Easy to visualise!
I have to think very hard any time a measurement is given in metric and usually just do not bother.
I would struggle to make sense of 21.336 cm.
Always amused when someone has said that something is a 'couple of feet' then someone back in the studio wants to be Politically Correct and
converts that to 60.96 cm
On 21/01/2026 09:16, JMB99 wrote:
On 21/01/2026 08:41, Davey wrote:
There was a reference yesterday on BBC News to a measurement of 0.7
feet. Easy to visualise!
well 0.66 is 2/3 so about 8"...
I have to think very hard any time a measurement is given in metric and usually just do not bother.
I would struggle to make sense of 21.336 cm.
Not hard for approximations. If I said 8 1/4 " you would probably
discard the 1/4" and say its about 2/3 of a foot.
As a foot is 30cms, 20 is also 2/3 of a foot....
Always amused when someone has said that something is a 'couple of feet' then someone back in the studio wants to be Politically Correct and converts that to 60.96 cm
Probably not politically correct, but educated in a metric world, and
don't understand feet, so they convert to metric in a calculator.
On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 09:50:49 +0000, Mark Carver wrote:
On 19/01/2026 09:38, David Wade wrote:
will the ONT port negotiate down to 100Mb/s?
It should do if it's a compliant Ethernet device. However, I was
suggesting using the redundant CW1308 to provide Ethernet to remote
rooms, and not for the ONT to main router link
There's no requirement for Ethernet devices to support lower speeds. In practice almost all do - they're using the same chips and get the support
for free so no point disabling it. But I have seen a few devices that only support 1G and won't work if you connect a 100M device.
Actually I do recall now, having to manually set a port on a hideously expensive Cisco Switch to talk down to 100 Megs
On 2026/1/20 20:58:23, Woody wrote:
On Tue 20/01/2026 18:47, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/1/20 8:25:44, Woody wrote:
[]
Curiously I notice that if I dial a 'local' number on the same
exchange as me complete with dialling code, it connects amazingly
quickly compared with just dialling the same number without
dialling code, and this on a 'normal' copper pair telephone line
without B/B on it.
I take it you're not using a pulse 'phone :-)
You can because they still work (believe it or not!)
Yes, AIUI many ATAs really do work with pulse dialling 'phones! I just
meant if you were including the code on such a 'phone, it'd take
noticeably longer (the "0" alone probably obviating any improvement!).
I'll be interested to see - when I eventually go VoIP - whether this
will enable pulse 'phones to work with menuing systems (which they
don't on POTS); I'll be rather surprised if they do.
On 21/01/2026 08:41, Davey wrote:
There was a reference yesterday on BBC News to a measurement of 0.7
feet. Easy to visualise!
I have to think very hard any time a measurement is given in metric and usually just do not bother.
I would struggle to make sense of 21.336 cm.
Always amused when someone has said that something is a 'couple of feet' then someone back in the studio wants to be Politically Correct and
converts that to 60.96 cm
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> writes:
On 2026/1/20 20:58:23, Woody wrote:
On Tue 20/01/2026 18:47, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/1/20 8:25:44, Woody wrote:
[]
Curiously I notice that if I dial a 'local' number on the same
exchange as me complete with dialling code, it connects amazingly
quickly compared with just dialling the same number without
dialling code, and this on a 'normal' copper pair telephone line
without B/B on it.
I take it you're not using a pulse 'phone :-)
You can because they still work (believe it or not!)
Yes, AIUI many ATAs really do work with pulse dialling 'phones! I just
meant if you were including the code on such a 'phone, it'd take
noticeably longer (the "0" alone probably obviating any improvement!).
I'll be interested to see - when I eventually go VoIP - whether this
will enable pulse 'phones to work with menuing systems (which they
don't on POTS); I'll be rather surprised if they do.
Is there an ATA which will really replicate an analog line? including
making my Truecall Secure work. At the moment it only works for
untrusted callers, i.e. I press a number and then it makes the phone
ring. But for trusted callers there is no ring. AI tells me this might
be a timing problem, i.e. the system ought to wait a couple of seconds
before trying to ring, or it might require a ringer bell capacitor
adaptor or something like that, due to having insufficient energy passed through to make the phone ring.
OK maybe I should have started a new thread.
On Wed 21/01/2026 11:44, Richmond wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> writes:
On 2026/1/20 20:58:23, Woody wrote:
On Tue 20/01/2026 18:47, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/1/20 8:25:44, Woody wrote:
[]
Curiously I notice that if I dial a 'local' number on the same
exchange as me complete with dialling code, it connects amazingly
quickly compared with just dialling the same number without
dialling code, and this on a 'normal' copper pair telephone line
without B/B on it.
I take it you're not using a pulse 'phone :-)
You can because they still work (believe it or not!)
Yes, AIUI many ATAs really do work with pulse dialling 'phones! I
just meant if you were including the code on such a 'phone, it'd
take noticeably longer (the "0" alone probably obviating any
improvement!).
I'll be interested to see - when I eventually go VoIP - whether this
will enable pulse 'phones to work with menuing systems (which they
don't on POTS); I'll be rather surprised if they do. >> Is there an
ATA which will really replicate an analog line? including >> making
my Truecall Secure work. At the moment it only works for >>
untrusted callers, i.e. I press a number and then it makes the phone
might >> be a timing problem, i.e. the system ought to wait a couplering. But for trusted callers there is no ring. AI tells me this
of seconds >> before trying to ring, or it might require a ringer
bell capacitor >> adaptor or something like that, due to having
insufficient energy passed >> through to make the phone ring. >> OK
maybe I should have started a new thread.
Please - what is Truecall Secure and how does it work?
OTOH I struggle with US folks who report weights in fractional pounds, eg 'X >laptop weighs 4.36 pounds and Y laptop is 0.17 pounds lighter'. 4lb is fine >(I'll turn that into 1.8kg), 4lb 2oz is fine (1.8 plus two lots of 25g = >1.85kg), but 0.36*0.454 (or 0.36*16*0.025) is awkward to do in my head.
JMB99 wrote:
On 21/01/2026 08:41, Davey wrote:
There was a reference yesterday on BBC News to a measurement of 0.7
feet. Easy to visualise!
I have to think very hard any time a measurement is given in metric and
usually just do not bother.
I would struggle to make sense of 21.336 cm.
Always amused when someone has said that something is a 'couple of feet'
then someone back in the studio wants to be Politically Correct and
converts that to 60.96 cm
I am amused by the way that captioned speech seems universally to
render tons (ie a lot) as tonnes (ie 1000 kg).
Chris
Theo wrote:I struggle with US folk who give humans in pounds. I'm sure they
OTOH I struggle with US folks who report weights in fractional pounds, eg 'X >> laptop weighs 4.36 pounds and Y laptop is 0.17 pounds lighter'. 4lb is fine >> (I'll turn that into 1.8kg), 4lb 2oz is fine (1.8 plus two lots of 25g =
1.85kg), but 0.36*0.454 (or 0.36*16*0.025) is awkward to do in my head.
At the other end of the scale, I often watch technical podcastsThat last is pretty universal - they give rocket thrust (for example) in pounds, even for huge ones. And I remember in the 'seventies it was
from across the pond, where the weight of heavy plant is given in
pounds. I simply mentally divide by 2000 as a first
approximation.
I can't make up my mind if this is standard, or they just want to
make the numbers seem bigger.
Chris
Its easier in my book to just register round figures:
1ft =300mm (sorry, this keyboard doesn,t have an approx equals key!)
1yd = 450mm
0.5m = 20in
4ft = 1.2m
5ft - 1.5m
Plus multiples.
Simples?
Its easier in my book to just register round figures:
1ft =300mm (sorry, this keyboard doesn,t have an approx equals key!)
1yd = 450mm <=======================Ummmm.
0.5m = 20in
4ft = 1.2m
5ft - 1.5m
Plus multiples.
On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 12:05:19 +0000, Woody wrote:
Its easier in my book to just register round figures:
1ft =300mm (sorry, this keyboard doesn,t have an approx equals key!)
1yd = 450mm <=======================Ummmm.
0.5m = 20in
4ft = 1.2m
5ft - 1.5m
Plus multiples.
there can be many options but only one alternative
Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> writes:
On Wed 21/01/2026 11:44, Richmond wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> writes:
On 2026/1/20 20:58:23, Woody wrote:
On Tue 20/01/2026 18:47, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/1/20 8:25:44, Woody wrote:
[]
Curiously I notice that if I dial a 'local' number on the same
exchange as me complete with dialling code, it connects amazingly >>>>>>> quickly compared with just dialling the same number without
dialling code, and this on a 'normal' copper pair telephone line >>>>>>> without B/B on it.
I take it you're not using a pulse 'phone :-)
You can because they still work (believe it or not!)
Yes, AIUI many ATAs really do work with pulse dialling 'phones! I
just meant if you were including the code on such a 'phone, it'd
take noticeably longer (the "0" alone probably obviating any
improvement!).
I'll be interested to see - when I eventually go VoIP - whether this
will enable pulse 'phones to work with menuing systems (which they
don't on POTS); I'll be rather surprised if they do. >> Is there an
ATA which will really replicate an analog line? including >> making
my Truecall Secure work. At the moment it only works for >>
untrusted callers, i.e. I press a number and then it makes the phone >>>>>> ring. But for trusted callers there is no ring. AI tells me this
might >> be a timing problem, i.e. the system ought to wait a couple
of seconds >> before trying to ring, or it might require a ringer
bell capacitor >> adaptor or something like that, due to having
insufficient energy passed >> through to make the phone ring. >> OK
maybe I should have started a new thread.
Please - what is Truecall Secure and how does it work?
It's a call screening system with various levels, white listing, black listing, secure pin etc.
They don't answer the phone or emails anymore so I don't recommend
it. Maybe they are swamped with VOIP converts.
https://www.truecall.co.uk/
https://www.truecall.co.uk/shop/truecall-secure
...
OTOH I struggle with US folks who report weights in fractional pounds, eg 'X laptop weighs 4.36 pounds and Y laptop is 0.17 pounds lighter'. 4lb is fine (I'll turn that into 1.8kg), 4lb 2oz is fine (1.8 plus two lots of 25g = 1.85kg), but 0.36*0.454 (or 0.36*16*0.025) is awkward to do in my head.
On 18/01/2026 10:34, David Wade wrote:
On 18/01/2026 09:14, JMB99 wrote:
I notice that BT are being a bit more accurate with their descriptionwell yes, they want rid of it. The cabs delivering it are getting old.
of fibre connections.-a They seem to now call it "part fibre
technology?" with a little diagram showing the fibre from the
exchange to the cabinet then some having fibre and some copper to the
premises.
They need power for which BT pays. If FTTP is available they want
people to switch. The problem is for most the FTTC speeds are fine so
the upgrade is a hard sell...
I'll be taking their arm off when FTTP arrives in our road. FTTC is a
bodge system, and Openreach have fewer and fewer staff that are able to properly diagnose and fix faults involving 'copper.
I'm fortunate in only having 84 metres of copper between me and the
cabinet, so not too many joints to 'degrade', but even so I still had a struggle fixing a fault (that turned out to be a corroded joint in the cabinet itself)
On 21/01/2026 11:32, Theo wrote:
...
OTOH I struggle with US folks who report weights in fractional pounds, eg 'X
laptop weighs 4.36 pounds and Y laptop is 0.17 pounds lighter'. 4lb is fine
(I'll turn that into 1.8kg), 4lb 2oz is fine (1.8 plus two lots of 25g = 1.85kg), but 0.36*0.454 (or 0.36*16*0.025) is awkward to do in my head.
The US way of stating how much a person weighs "she weighed 195 pounds" always has me reaching for a calculator.
I know more or less what I weighed in stones on my parents scales, and I
know how many kg I weigh on my modern scales.
But is 195 pounds underweight, around normal, or overweight?
In most cases I probably don't care enough to even begin to try and work
it out in my head.
14st. 1lb is a pretty beefy lady... (conversion done in my head)
On 18/01/2026 17:03, Mark Carver wrote:
On 18/01/2026 10:34, David Wade wrote:
On 18/01/2026 09:14, JMB99 wrote:
I notice that BT are being a bit more accurate with theirwell yes, they want rid of it. The cabs delivering it are getting
description of fibre connections.-a They seem to now call it "part
fibre technology?" with a little diagram showing the fibre from the
exchange to the cabinet then some having fibre and some copper to
the premises.
old. They need power for which BT pays. If FTTP is available they
want people to switch. The problem is for most the FTTC speeds are
fine so the upgrade is a hard sell...
I'll be taking their arm off when FTTP arrives in our road. FTTC is a
bodge system, and Openreach have fewer and fewer staff that are able
to properly diagnose and fix faults involving 'copper.
I'm fortunate in only having 84 metres of copper between me and the
cabinet, so not too many joints to 'degrade', but even so I still had
a struggle fixing a fault (that turned out to be a corroded joint in
the cabinet itself)
Even when ADSL was all there was it seemed like a major struggle getting
our ADSL fixed.
It was a major fault, but intermittent. I would sometimes see the
upstream attenuation figures go sky high before the connection
completely dropped. The downstream attenuation figures never really
changed at all until the connection was dropped completely. The phone
part always worked perfectly, no crackles, no hiss nothing.
It seemed obvious to me that the fault was in the exchange equipment
that was supposed to be receiving ADSL from my modem. But no, the guy
would just come at random times, days after I had reported a fault,
after it had already started working again, and had to be really
pressurised into looking for a fault at all. He would dig a bit in
various places near my home and find something that presumably wasn't perfect which he'd "fix" and claim that was sure to be it and disappear.
Eventually I did persuade them to change the equipment at the exchange
(a new line card IIRC) and, of course, that 100% fixed it.
On Wed 21/01/2026 12:48, Richmond wrote:
Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> writes:
On Wed 21/01/2026 11:44, Richmond wrote:It's a call screening system with various levels, white listing, black
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> writes:
On 2026/1/20 20:58:23, Woody wrote:
On Tue 20/01/2026 18:47, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/1/20 8:25:44, Woody wrote:
[]
Curiously I notice that if I dial a 'local' number on the same >>>>>>>> exchange as me complete with dialling code, it connects amazingly >>>>>>>> quickly compared with just dialling the same number without
dialling code, and this on a 'normal' copper pair telephone line >>>>>>>> without B/B on it.
I take it you're not using a pulse 'phone :-)
You can because they still work (believe it or not!)
Yes, AIUI many ATAs really do work with pulse dialling 'phones! I
just meant if you were including the code on such a 'phone, it'd
take noticeably longer (the "0" alone probably obviating any
improvement!).
I'll be interested to see - when I eventually go VoIP - whether this >>>>> will enable pulse 'phones to work with menuing systems (which they
don't on POTS); I'll be rather surprised if they do. >> Is there an >>>>> ATA which will really replicate an analog line? including >> making
my Truecall Secure work. At the moment it only works for >>
untrusted callers, i.e. I press a number and then it makes the phone >>>>>>> ring. But for trusted callers there is no ring. AI tells me this
might >> be a timing problem, i.e. the system ought to wait a couple >>>>> of seconds >> before trying to ring, or it might require a ringer
bell capacitor >> adaptor or something like that, due to having
insufficient energy passed >> through to make the phone ring. >> OK >>>>> maybe I should have started a new thread.
Please - what is Truecall Secure and how does it work?
listing, secure pin etc.
They don't answer the phone or emails anymore so I don't recommend
it. Maybe they are swamped with VOIP converts.
https://www.truecall.co.uk/
https://www.truecall.co.uk/shop/truecall-secure
Now I understand it - it is the same Truecall that came with some
TAMs.
However many scam callers have now changed their style of operation
having a computer ring you and wait for you to speak. It can even tell
the difference between a person and a TAM answering the call. With
this type the recipient merely has to pick up the handset and wait
about 5 seconds without speaking. If it is a computer it will almost certainly drop the call in less than that; if it is a person the
caller will probably say "hello" in case the recipient was waiting for someone to answer. Even our simple system where the caller is asked to
enter a number to proceed catches most scam calls. If one is a human
on the other end and complies a quick look at the number on the phone
display is a giveaway. At the moment at least a number showing a zero
for the first digit of the calling number, e.g. 01nnnXnnnnn where X is
0 or 1 will be false. Equally so (and we get a few) if it is headed as
an International call and you know no-one outside the UK or the
displayed number starts 0044 that too will be a scam call. Five
seconds should be plenty long enough to spot that! Since we have had
our "press 3 to proceed" type of answer (Panasonic) our scam call rate
has dropped out of sight.
Oh, and of course the recipient could just listen to the handset on
its rest (assuming a walkiephone) until it gets to the TAM and they
can hear who is
calling and choose to answer or not. It just needs a bit of explanation.
David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
On 19/01/2026 16:56, Theo wrote:
Powers of 2 of storage (1024 squared, cubed, etc) are now measured in
kibibytes, mebibytes, gibibytes, etc, abbreviation KiB, MiB, GiB, etc.
I think it is more correct to say that there is a lobby for this
convention, but it is far from universal. I think the lobby is
particularly prevalent in open source OS development; I'm not sure I've
ever seen it used in the description of more proprietary systems.
NVIDIA, as an example, don't seem to use it. Jedec, who are standards
body in microelectronics area, don't seem to use it, e.g. see
<https://www.jedec.org/standards-documents/docs/jesd250d>.
The 'lobby' in question being IEC 60027-2 A.2 and ISO/IEC 80000:13-2025, as well as the BIPM, NIST and the EU. ISO 80000 is 'the' standard that defines the standard units.
Of course people can choose not to use it, just like people choose to
measure things in inches, gallons and stones.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 00:15:43 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| Messages: | 197,326 |