Is Ofcom about to discover that Meta doesn't obey the law?
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-and-broadband/telecoms-infrastructure/investigation-into-metas-compliance-with-statutory-requests-for-information
(Everyone else knew this already of course, but it would be interesting
to see what they turn up).
On 23/01/2026 12:05 pm, Richmond wrote:
Is Ofcom about to discover that Meta doesn't obey the law?
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-and-broadband/telecoms-infrastructure/investigation-into-metas-compliance-with-statutory-requests-for-information
(Everyone else knew this already of course, but it would be interesting
to see what they turn up).
About damn time if i do say so, though they probably won't be hit with
any meaningful consequence (unfortunately), there are much bigger things ofcom hasn't taken action on (like the ITV licence monopoly)
--
Blue
why am i here?
On 2026/1/23 23:19:32, Blue wrote:
On 23/01/2026 12:05 pm, Richmond wrote:What monopoly would that be? The only one I could think of would be the _apparent_ "local" monopoly, but isn't that due to no-one being able to
Is Ofcom about to discover that Meta doesn't obey the law?
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/phones-and-broadband/telecoms-infrastructure/investigation-into-metas-compliance-with-statutory-requests-for-information
(Everyone else knew this already of course, but it would be interesting
to see what they turn up).
About damn time if i do say so, though they probably won't be hit with
any meaningful consequence (unfortunately), there are much bigger things
ofcom hasn't taken action on (like the ITV licence monopoly)
make much of a go (see the FreeView channel 7 or 8 offerings that
struggle in some areas)?
ITV still operates by virtue of a franchise structure, and all of the formerly independent ITV companies still exist for that very purpose, it just so happens that all the franchises get continually awarded to the
one company that owns all the other franchise companies, which is the textbook definition of a monopoly... ESPECIALLY where competition rules should dictate that everyone else should have a fighting chance (which
was the whole thing behind the thatchterite deregulation of broadcasting anyway)
On 24/01/2026 13:05, Blue wrote:
ITV still operates by virtue of a franchise structure, and all of the
formerly independent ITV companies still exist for that very purpose, it
just so happens that all the franchises get continually awarded to the
one company that owns all the other franchise companies, which is the
textbook definition of a monopoly... ESPECIALLY where competition rules
should dictate that everyone else should have a fighting chance (which
was the whole thing behind the thatchterite deregulation of broadcasting
anyway)
Seriously, is anyone still watching terrestrial TV?
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 24/01/2026 13:05, Blue wrote:
ITV still operates by virtue of a franchise structure, and all of the
formerly independent ITV companies still exist for that very purpose, it >>> just so happens that all the franchises get continually awarded to the
one company that owns all the other franchise companies, which is the
textbook definition of a monopoly... ESPECIALLY where competition rules >>> should dictate that everyone else should have a fighting chance (which
was the whole thing behind the thatchterite deregulation of broadcasting >>> anyway)
Seriously, is anyone still watching terrestrial TV?
Apparently 60% of all UK households.
On 2026/1/24 14:6:17, Tweed wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
It'd probably also be interesting to know what proportion are _only_Seriously, is anyone still watching terrestrial TV?
Apparently 60% of all UK households.
watching terrestrial. I have no satellite dish, and no _subscription_ to
any streaming service; I do watch a certain amount of youTube, and a
small amount of iPlayer though mainly only of material that was
broadcast earlier that day but I was watching something else or fell
asleep during. I suspect we "onlys" _are_ declining - well, I'm pretty
sure of it; whether below 50% I don't know, but if the above 60% is
those watching terrestrial _at all_, then those watching it _only_
probably _is_ below half.
On 2026/1/24 14:6:17, Tweed wrote:
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 24/01/2026 13:05, Blue wrote:
ITV still operates by virtue of a franchise structure, and all of
the formerly independent ITV companies still exist for that very
purpose, it just so happens that all the franchises get
continually awarded to the one company that owns all the other
franchise companies, which is the textbook definition of a
monopoly... ESPECIALLY where competition rules should dictate
that everyone else should have a fighting chance (which was the
whole thing behind the thatchterite deregulation of broadcasting
anyway)
Seriously, is anyone still watching terrestrial TV?
Apparently 60% of all UK households.It'd probably also be interesting to know what proportion are _only_
watching terrestrial. I have no satellite dish, and no _subscription_
to any streaming service; I do watch a certain amount of youTube, and
a small amount of iPlayer though mainly only of material that was
broadcast earlier that day but I was watching something else or fell
asleep during. I suspect we "onlys" _are_ declining - well, I'm pretty
sure of it; whether below 50% I don't know, but if the above 60% is
those watching terrestrial _at all_, then those watching it _only_
probably _is_ below half.
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 24/01/2026 13:05, Blue wrote:
ITV still operates by virtue of a franchise structure, and all of the
formerly independent ITV companies still exist for that very purpose, it >>> just so happens that all the franchises get continually awarded to the
one company that owns all the other franchise companies, which is the
textbook definition of a monopoly... ESPECIALLY where competition rules
should dictate that everyone else should have a fighting chance (which
was the whole thing behind the thatchterite deregulation of broadcasting >>> anyway)
Seriously, is anyone still watching terrestrial TV?
Apparently 60% of all UK households.
Seriously, is anyone still watching terrestrial TV?
The best drama, which used to be only on the BBC, with small budgets are
now on channels like Netflix, with much larger budgets. If you like good drama, you now need to go on line, while the BBC still buy in some of
the best documentary and science programmes, which are easier to watch
on Freeview.
Tweed wrote:I have Amazon Prime (mostly for the deliveries, not the streaming) I did
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Seriously, is anyone still watching terrestrial TV?
Apparently 60% of all UK households.
It'd probably also be interesting to know what proportion are _only_
watching terrestrial. I have no satellite dish, and no _subscription_ to
any streaming service; I do watch a certain amount of youTube, and a
small amount of iPlayer
There might be lots of imported documentary and science programmes
but not convinced they are the best though I rarely watch any of
them.
I had Netflix included with my broadband but I don't think I have
ever watched any of their own stuff.
Apparently 60% of all UK households.It'd probably also be interesting to know what proportion are_only_
watching terrestrial. I have no satellite dish, and no_subscription_ to
any streaming service; I do watch a certain amount of youTube, and a
small amount of iPlayer though mainly only of material that was
broadcast earlier that day but I was watching something else or fell
asleep during. I suspect we "onlys"_are_ declining - well, I'm pretty
sure of it; whether below 50% I don't know, but if the above 60% is
those watching terrestrial_at all_, then those watching it_only_
probably_is_ below half.
I agree that the BBC did once produce the best science programmes by
some margin and in a way still do. The problem for me, (easy to
guess), they can't resist preaching their ideologies. They're not
concerned about educating you with facts they're interested in
telling what you should think and it's often coblers.
This stops me watching so much broadcast tv that it's easier to
ignore it all together. I can't remember the last time I decided to
watch a broadcast programme. The "NEWS" is usually a sewer of
nonsense.
On 25/01/2026 10:12, Bob Latham wrote:
I agree that the BBC did once produce the best science programmes byJust like any other channel, then?
some margin and in a way still do. The problem for me, (easy to
guess), they can't resist preaching their ideologies. They're not
concerned about educating you with facts they're interested in
telling what you should think and it's often coblers.
This stops me watching so much broadcast tv that it's easier toIs there a more balanced news channel anywhere? I can't find one. Then again, many seem to think that GB News is actually a news channel...
ignore it all together. I can't remember the last time I decided to
watch a broadcast programme. The "NEWS" is usually a sewer of
nonsense.
It'd probably also be interesting to know what proportion are _only_
watching terrestrial. I have no satellite dish, and no _subscription_ to
any streaming service; I do watch a certain amount of youTube, and a
small amount of iPlayer though mainly only of material that was
broadcast earlier that day but I was watching something else or fell
asleep during. I suspect we "onlys" _are_ declining - well, I'm pretty
sure of it; whether below 50% I don't know, but if the above 60% is
those watching terrestrial _at all_, then those watching it _only_
probably _is_ below half.
On 25/01/2026 10:12, Bob Latham wrote:
I agree that the BBC did once produce the best science programmes
by some margin and in a way still do. The problem for me, (easy
to guess), they can't resist preaching their ideologies. They're
not concerned about educating you with facts they're interested
in telling what you should think and it's often coblers.
Just like any other channel, then?
This stops me watching so much broadcast tv that it's easier to
ignore it all together. I can't remember the last time I decided
to watch a broadcast programme. The "NEWS" is usually a sewer of
nonsense.
Is there a more balanced news channel anywhere? I can't find one.
Then again, many seem to think that GB News is actually a news
channel...
I agree that the BBC did once produce the best science programmes by
some margin and in a way still do.
I agree that the BBC did once produce the best science programmes by
some margin and in a way still do.
On 24/01/2026 14:02, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Seriously, is anyone still watching terrestrial TV?
Yes, plenty.
I also found something odd recently at the end of streamed programmes on >iPlayer, where it will automatically show "Next episode in 15 seconds"
as the credits roll. I wanted to see who was playing a minor cast
member, so tried to pause the programme when the credits were showing. I
was surprised to find that the pause key didn't work, and neither did
rewind (or fast forward for that matter). I haven't tried changing the >settings so that iPlayer doesn't automatically play the next episode to
see if that helps.
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 08:38:54 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
I had Netflix included with my broadband but I don't think I have ever
watched any of their own stuff.
What is this week's definition of broadband?
I had a pimply faced youth at a mall outlet tell me that
broadband was Cellular 5G, I met another who worked at aother
mall outlet tell me that 5G was fiber. Broadband like turbo has a
definition but is used as a marketing term. Another geezer talked
determedly about broadband and couldn't understand why I talked
about fiber, being unaware that fiber optic cable delivered real
broadband connections.
Ofcom has complained about the marketing Dweebs selling
the rubes "Broadband".
In effect, you had a pair of wires between you and the other end.
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 08:38:54 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
I had Netflix included with my broadband but I don't think I have ever
watched any of their own stuff.
What is this week's definition of broadband?
I had a pimply faced youth at a mall outlet tell me that
broadband was Cellular 5G, I met another who worked at aother
mall outlet tell me that 5G was fiber. Broadband like turbo has a
definition but is used as a marketing term. Another geezer talked
determedly about broadband and couldn't understand why I talked
about fiber, being unaware that fiber optic cable delivered real
broadband connections.
Ofcom has complained about the marketing Dweebs selling
the rubes "Broadband".
On 28/01/2026 17:59, Julian Macassey wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 08:38:54 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:Well its all very open to question.
I had Netflix included with my broadband but I don't think I have ever
watched any of their own stuff.
-a-a-a-aWhat is this week's definition of broadband?
-a-a-a-aI had a pimply faced youth at a mall outlet tell me that
broadband was Cellular 5G, I met another who worked at aother
mall outlet tell me that 5G was fiber. Broadband like turbo has a
definition but is used as a marketing term. Another geezer talked
determedly about broadband and couldn't understand why I talked
about fiber, being unaware that fiber optic cable delivered real
broadband connections.
-a-a-a-aOfcom has complained about the marketing Dweebs selling
the rubes "Broadband".
Originally 'broadband' was what was applied to telephone lines that used more than 'baseband' to transfer data (modems of the audible sort).
i,e,. DSL of various flavours.
It's been widened to include FTTP, But its arguable as to whether mobile data should be under its name.
That is usally 'mobile broadband' at best.
However much we fight against it, words will evolve to have multiple,
often conflicting, meanings. Often hindered by marketing - I've been frustrated for years by the implication that mobile 'phones do
everything, whereas in practice a lot of what they _appear_ to be doing
is being done by something remote. An example (that is only beginning to change with the advent of FTTP) in UK, is the box/device that goes
between the telephone master socket and the computers/smartphones; it actually contains a MoDem, a hub or two, a router, and a wifi base;
however, we mostly call the whole box a "router", which causes confusion
when talking to USians as they often _don't_ have everything in one box.
Broadband, if it means anything, I suppose means anything that uses more
than the audio bandwidth, though at least we've tended to retain "mobile broadband" to distinguish it from wired (or fibred). But the average non-technical joe/joanne is going to be hazy about the difference,
especially if they primarily use a smartphone rather than a computer.
Other examples: remote (when did you last hear anyone call it a remote _control_?), microwave, printer (often taken to include a scanner), ...
They also pronounce "router" as "rowter" (rhymes with "cow") and hence > make no distinction in pronunciation between the computer equipment and[]
the woodworking tool for cutting channels in wood.
Jeff Layman wrote:
I also found something odd recently at the end of streamed programmes on
iPlayer, where it will automatically show "Next episode in 15 seconds"
as the credits roll. I wanted to see who was playing a minor cast
member, so tried to pause the programme when the credits were showing. I
was surprised to find that the pause key didn't work, and neither did
rewind (or fast forward for that matter). I haven't tried changing the
settings so that iPlayer doesn't automatically play the next episode to
see if that helps.
I believe that you have to be crafty to get round this issue.
IIRC pausing and resuming shortly before the message appears
seems to make it then subsequently respond to the commands.
I don't do gaming, but there are times when you wonder how you
are supposed to divine these things.
I only know because my partner was really keen to see some
credits, and re-ran the programme, skipped forward towards the
end, and achieved what I described.
Subsequently , it was simply a case of predicting how soon to
have a pause as the end approached.
When you think about it, it is PFM (pure f-ing magic) that it is
possible to get a broadband signal of several MHz to propagate along
a copper twisted-pair cable that was originally designed to carry
speech audio with a maximum frequency of about 3 kHz, and that it is
not attenuated by a long length of cable between house and exchange.
I think usually copper for carrying ADSL (ie not fibre) is usually
one long length (barring splices in wires) between house and
exchange. Or are the local-loop cables ever amplified between house
and exchange?
On 28/01/2026 20:49, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
In the 1980s, BT sometimes used a DACS - a frequency-division
multiplexer box - to send several houses' phone lines down a single
copper pair, if pairs were in short supply. My parents have a holiday cottage in a tiny hamlet in Wensleydale and when they first got a phone
line installed, it used a DACS. When broadband internet was starting to
be introduced, and signals outside the normal 300-3000 Hz speech needed
to be conveyed, BT had to upgrade all those lines to a separate pair per house, because the DACS was not designed with broadband in mind.
On 28/01/2026 23:20, NY wrote:
When you think about it, it is PFM (pure f-ing magic) that it is
possible to get a broadband signal of several MHz to propagate along
a copper twisted-pair cable that was originally designed to carry
speech audio with a maximum frequency of about 3 kHz, and that it is
not attenuated by a long length of cable between house and exchange.
Oh but it is attenuated. The limit being about 60dB at which point a
9600 modem works better.
I think usually copper for carrying ADSL (ie not fibre) is usually
one long length (barring splices in wires) between house and
exchange. Or are the local-loop cables ever amplified between house
and exchange?
No. They never were. devices existed that would have enabled broadband
to remote locations, but were never allowed by BT - presumably too complex.
DSL and friends was a technology designed to push local loop copper to
the limit, and it worked amazingly well really.
Somehow, despite one of the wires being broken, the DSL signal wasThe RF carrier could probably jump a small gap, whereas POTS relies on
getting through. Once the fault had been repaired, we could make/receive phone calls again but the DSL sync speed and stats reverted to their old values.
On 28/01/2026 23:20, NY wrote:
On 28/01/2026 20:49, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
In the 1980s, BT sometimes used a DACS - a frequency-division
multiplexer box - to send several houses' phone lines down a single
copper pair, if pairs were in short supply. My parents have a holiday
cottage in a tiny hamlet in Wensleydale and when they first got a phone
line installed, it used a DACS. When broadband internet was starting to
be introduced, and signals outside the normal 300-3000 Hz speech needed
to be conveyed, BT had to upgrade all those lines to a separate pair
per house, because the DACS was not designed with broadband in mind.
DACS stopped normal dial-up modems from working as well.
Somehow, despite one of the wires being broken, the DSL signal wasOf course. DSL is radio frequencies. 60kHz - 10 MHz I think.
getting through.
On 28/01/2026 17:59, Julian Macassey wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 08:38:54 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:Well its all very open to question.
I had Netflix included with my broadband but I don't think I have ever
watched any of their own stuff.
What is this week's definition of broadband?
Originally 'broadband' was what was applied to telephone lines that used more than 'baseband' to transfer data (modems of the audible sort).
i,e,. DSL of various flavours.
It's been widened to include FTTP, But its arguable as to whether mobile data should be under its name.
That is usally 'mobile broadband' at best.
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 18:37:17 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 28/01/2026 17:59, Julian Macassey wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 08:38:54 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:Well its all very open to question.
I had Netflix included with my broadband but I don't think I have ever >>>> watched any of their own stuff.
What is this week's definition of broadband?
So, it is in fact whatever the vendor says it is.
Originally 'broadband' was what was applied to telephone lines that used
more than 'baseband' to transfer data (modems of the audible sort).
i,e,. DSL of various flavours.
That was decades ago.
It's been widened to include FTTP, But its arguable as to whether mobile
data should be under its name.
These days, selling cellular 5G and DSL as broadband is
fraud.
That is usally 'mobile broadband' at best.
Which isn't broadband.
On 01/02/2026 09:02, Julian Macassey wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 18:37:17 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 28/01/2026 17:59, Julian Macassey wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 08:38:54 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:Well its all very open to question.
I had Netflix included with my broadband but I don't think I have ever >>>>> watched any of their own stuff.
What is this week's definition of broadband?
So, it is in fact whatever the vendor says it is.
But doesn't make it invalid.
Originally 'broadband' was what was applied to telephone lines that used >>> more than 'baseband' to transfer data (modems of the audible sort).
i,e,. DSL of various flavours.
That was decades ago.
It's been widened to include FTTP, But its arguable as to whether mobile >>> data should be under its name.
These days, selling cellular 5G and DSL as broadband is
fraud.
I see you do not actually understand why it was called broadband in the first placeBy your definition - which is?
That is usally 'mobile broadband' at best.
Which isn't broadband.
On 2026/2/1 10:52:53, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2026 09:02, Julian Macassey wrote:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2026 18:37:17 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 28/01/2026 17:59, Julian Macassey wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 08:38:54 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:open to question.
I had Netflix included with my broadband but I don't think I have
ever watched any of their own stuff.
What is this week's definition of broadband? Well its all very
So, it is in fact whatever the vendor says it is.
Correct.
But doesn't make it invalid.
Originally 'broadband' was what was applied to telephone lines that
used more than 'baseband' to transfer data (modems of the audible
sort). i,e,. DSL of various flavours.
That was decades ago.
It's been widened to include FTTP, But its arguable as to whether
mobile data should be under its name.
These days, selling cellular 5G and DSL as broadband is fraud.
For it to be fraud, there'd need to be a legal definition of what
broadband means.
I agree, it is (arguably mis-)used these days just to mean internet
access, but that's the way things are.
By your definition - which is?
I see you do not actually understand why it was called broadband in
the first place
That is usally 'mobile broadband' at best.
Which isn't broadband.
Sadly (in some ways), language evolves - often in ways that some of us
find irritating, especially when the change mangles (or even
reverses!) the original meaning. This can apply especially in
technical areas. But there's nothing you can do about it (I know: my
brother works for the dictionary), unless it has been tied down
legally in some agreement/contract (and then only in the context of
that agreement/contract).
Sadly (in some ways), language evolves - often in ways that some of us
find irritating, especially when the change mangles (or even reverses!)
the original meaning. This can apply especially in technical areas. But there's nothing you can do about it (I know: my brother works for the dictionary), unless it has been tied down legally in some
agreement/contract (and then only in the context of that
agreement/contract).
On 01/02/2026 13:42, Richmond wrote:
BT's 2Mbps service was called broadband (2005?), but it was slower thanBroadband NEVER was ANYTHING to do with download speeds.
5g is now. Their website was saying "broadband is here" in 2002, so
imagine how slow that was.
It was used to refer to the use of wide spectrum RF as a data carrier, rather than a single frequency, which is called NARROWBAND.
On 01/02/2026 13:42, Richmond wrote:Although I'd say broadband has now been used by so many to mean so many
BT's 2Mbps service was called broadband (2005?), but it was slower thanBroadband NEVER was ANYTHING to do with download speeds.
5g is now. Their website was saying "broadband is here" in 2002, so
imagine how slow that was.
It was used to refer to the use of wide spectrum RF as a data carrier, > rather than a single frequency, which is called NARROWBAND.
AM radio is narrowband. FM radio is narrowband. spread spectrumAM radio is indeed fairly narrowband (9-10 kHz of spectrum to carry 5
frequency hopping radio is arguably broad band and that is mobile phoneModern (G2 on, I think) fobile moans are indeed multi-carrier spread
technology, irrespective of how fast it is. Original television wasNow we're getting back to "broadband" versus "multicarrier/frequency
narrow band. Digital terrestrial TV is broad band
The fact that marketing people conflated it with a larger penis, doesNicely put!
not change its meaning which was always technical.We'd like to think so. But I fear it's now meaningless - as I've said in another post, as far as the general public is concerned (and aided - or,
On 2026/2/1 20:27:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2026 13:42, Richmond wrote:
BT's 2Mbps service was called broadband (2005?), but it was slower thanBroadband NEVER was ANYTHING to do with download speeds.
5g is now. Their website was saying "broadband is here" in 2002, so
imagine how slow that was.
It was used to refer to the use of wide spectrum RF as a data carrier, rather than a single frequency, which is called NARROWBAND.
Although I'd say broadband has now been used by so many to mean so many things that it's effectively meaningless, I think you are here confusing spread spectrum (multiple carriers) with broadband. Granted, many
broadband systems _do_ use multiple carriers, as doing so has some
efficiency gains, and much robustness gain.
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2026/2/1 20:27:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2026 13:42, Richmond wrote:
BT's 2Mbps service was called broadband (2005?), but it was slower than >>>> 5g is now. Their website was saying "broadband is here" in 2002, soBroadband NEVER was ANYTHING to do with download speeds.
imagine how slow that was.
It was used to refer to the use of wide spectrum RF as a data carrier,
rather than a single frequency, which is called NARROWBAND.
Although I'd say broadband has now been used by so many to mean so many
things that it's effectively meaningless, I think you are here confusing
spread spectrum (multiple carriers) with broadband. Granted, many
broadband systems _do_ use multiple carriers, as doing so has some
efficiency gains, and much robustness gain.
With respect to RF, 'Broadband' would be more accurately called
'Wideband'. This is not relevant to the discussion of /data/ rates.
With respect to RF, 'Broadband' would be more accurately called
'Wideband'. This is not relevant to the discussion of /data/ rates.
That would certainly be less ambiguous in the RF context.
In the data context, what would _you_ consider "broadband" to mean? (I'd
say either "nothing nowadays", or "a data rate significantly higher than
you could get through an audio-band-only modem", which would mean
anything from say 2M upwards.)
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 08:38:54 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
I had Netflix included with my broadband but I don't think I have ever
watched any of their own stuff.
What is this week's definition of broadband?
I had a pimply faced youth at a mall outlet tell me that
broadband was Cellular 5G, I met another who worked at aother
mall outlet tell me that 5G was fiber. Broadband like turbo has a
definition but is used as a marketing term. Another geezer talked
determedly about broadband and couldn't understand why I talked
about fiber, being unaware that fiber optic cable delivered real
broadband connections.
Ofcom has complained about the marketing Dweebs selling
the rubes "Broadband".
not change its meaning which was always technical.We'd like to think so. But I fear it's now meaningless - as I've said in another post, as far as the general public is concerned (and aided - or,
I'd say, more hindered - by both the industry and politicians), the
terms broadband, data, (the) internet, wifi, cable, and fibre (and
probably some others I've not thought of) all mean vaguely the same thing.
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2026/2/1 20:27:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2026 13:42, Richmond wrote:
BT's 2Mbps service was called broadband (2005?), but it was slower than >>>> 5g is now. Their website was saying "broadband is here" in 2002, soBroadband NEVER was ANYTHING to do with download speeds.
imagine how slow that was.
It was used to refer to the use of wide spectrum RF as a data carrier,
rather than a single frequency, which is called NARROWBAND.
Although I'd say broadband has now been used by so many to mean so many
things that it's effectively meaningless, I think you are here confusing
spread spectrum (multiple carriers) with broadband. Granted, many
broadband systems _do_ use multiple carriers, as doing so has some
efficiency gains, and much robustness gain.
With respect to RF, 'Broadband' would be more accurately called
'Wideband'. This is not relevant to the discussion of /data/ rates.
With respect to RF, 'Broadband' would be more accurately calledThat would certainly be less ambiguous in the RF context.
'Wideband'. This is not relevant to the discussion of/data/ rates.
In the data context, what would_you_ consider "broadband" to mean? (I'd
say either "nothing nowadays", or "a data rate significantly higher than
you could get through an audio-band-only modem", which would mean
anything from say 2M upwards.)
Julian Macassey <julian@n6are.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 08:38:54 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
I had Netflix included with my broadband but I don't think I have ever
watched any of their own stuff.
What is this week's definition of broadband?
Two possible meanings:
1) The modulation is wideband but centred around a single frequency
(giving a wide spectrum of sidebands).
2) Multiple carriers are scattered across a wide range of frequencies (otherwise known as "spread-spectrum").
Very confusing, even before the advertising copy-writers got hold of it.
Julian Macassey <julian@n6are.com> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 08:38:54 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
I had Netflix included with my broadband but I don't think I have
ever watched any of their own stuff.
What is this week's definition of broadband?
Two possible meanings:
1) The modulation is wideband but centred around a single frequency
(giving a wide spectrum of sidebands).
2) Multiple carriers are scattered across a wide range of frequencies (otherwise known as "spread-spectrum").
Very confusing, even before the advertising copy-writers got hold of
it.
A question which springs to my mind is, how would you measure how broad
a broadband service is? Maybe it is like asking which flows faster, a
narrow river or a broad one? If it is in metres per second then it is
the same, but if it is in cubic metres per second the broad river is
faster.
How did this get sent to a broadcast newsgroup? Broadcast is about
sowing seeds.
Multiple carriers are scattered across a wide range of frequencies
(otherwise known as "spread-spectrum").
On 02/02/2026 13:18, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Multiple carriers are scattered across a wide range of frequencies
(otherwise known as "spread-spectrum").
That's not spread spectrum.-a The characteristic that makes spread
spectrum is that multiple, independent, signals are sharing the same frequency range. That's either done by frequency hopping (Bluetooth
being the prime consumer application), or by phase modulating the
digital data onto a much faster pseudo random bit pattern (e.g 3G mobile phones, and GPS).-a xDSL, digital TV, and DAB, are orthogonal frequency division multiplexing, which makes use of the whole allocated spectrum
for one signal.
Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing has the advantage that it has--
a low baud rate, so, it is tolerant of multipath effects. These are what caused ghosting on analogue TV, and still do cause fading on AM radio. Excess bits are sent, spread over the sub-carriers, which allows error correction to compensate for any sub-carriers that have faded too much. (xDSL has multipath because of reflections from splices and forks, and
the ends of branches, in the wiring.)
Take analogue TV, the audio may be considered to be on a separate transmitted frequency, but the chroma is-a multiplexed onto the same 'channel' as the video.
On 02/02/2026 02:51, J. P. Gilliver wrote:[...]
With respect to RF, 'Broadband' would be more accurately calledThat would certainly be less ambiguous in the RF context.
'Wideband'. This is not relevant to the discussion of/data/ rates.
Its *all* RF. what did you think DSL was ? Pixies running down the wires?
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 02/02/2026 02:51, J. P. Gilliver wrote:[...]
Its *all* RF. what did you think DSL was ? Pixies running down the wires?With respect to RF, 'Broadband' would be more accurately calledThat would certainly be less ambiguous in the RF context.
'Wideband'. This is not relevant to the discussion of/data/ rates.
Sarcasm ill becomes a lecturer.
I have Amazon Prime (mostly for the deliveries, not the streaming) I did have Netflix for a year, but decided not to renew as I had watched all
the series from past years that I cared to watch (and didn't want to
start watching newer stuff just because it was there)
When you think about it, it is PFM (pure f-ing magic) that it is
possible to get a broadband signal of several MHz to propagate along a copper twisted-pair cable that was originally designed to carry speech
audio with a maximum frequency of about 3 kHz, and that it is not
attenuated by a long length of cable between house and exchange. I think usually copper for carrying ADSL (ie not fibre) is usually one long
length (barring splices in wires) between house and exchange. Or are the local-loop cables ever amplified between house and exchange?
These days, selling cellular 5G and DSL as broadband is
fraud.
I see you do not actually understand why it was called broadband in the first place
Actually I do, I have been using data transmision vie
telecom since the late 1970s. I even used to own a load of
Telebit Trailblazers when your average punter thought a Bell 110
baud modem was hot stuff.
On 06/02/2026 13:16, Julian Macassey wrote:
Actually I do, I have been using data transmision vie
telecom since the late 1970s. I even used to own a load of
Telebit Trailblazers when your average punter thought a Bell 110
baud modem was hot stuff.
A friend had a Teletype at his home, linked to his work via a rack
mounted modem (quite possibly 300 baud!).
His kids were never bothered by the Teletype chattering away all
night!
On Fri, 6 Feb 2026 20:45:36 +0000
JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
On 06/02/2026 13:16, Julian Macassey wrote:
Actually I do, I have been using data transmision vie
telecom since the late 1970s. I even used to own a load of
Telebit Trailblazers when your average punter thought a Bell 110
baud modem was hot stuff.
A friend had a Teletype at his home, linked to his work via a rack
mounted modem (quite possibly 300 baud!).
His kids were never bothered by the Teletype chattering away all
night!
They probably thought it was the sound of the future.
A friend had a Teletype at his home, linked to his work via a rack
mounted modem (quite possibly 300 baud!).
Hmm. 110 baud rings a bell (sometimies literally!).
In article <10m5r5d$h4sk$1@dont-email.me>,
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
A friend had a Teletype at his home, linked to his work via a rack
mounted modem (quite possibly 300 baud!).
[...]
Hmm. 110 baud rings a bell (sometimies literally!).
The widely-used Model 33 teletype ran at 110 baud. We had one at
school, connected by a modem to a computer belonging to the local
council.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletype_Model_33
The computer was an ICL 1900 running Maximop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINIMOP#MAXIMOP
I had Netflix included with my broadband but I don't think I have ever watched any of their own stuff.
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 08:38:54 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
I had Netflix included with my broadband but I don't think I have ever
watched any of their own stuff.
What is this week's definition of broadband?
I had a pimply faced youth at a mall outlet tell me that
broadband was Cellular 5G, I met another who worked at aother
mall outlet tell me that 5G was fiber. Broadband like turbo has a
definition but is used as a marketing term. Another geezer talked
determedly about broadband and couldn't understand why I talked
about fiber, being unaware that fiber optic cable delivered real
broadband connections.
Ofcom has complained about the marketing Dweebs selling
the rubes "Broadband".
On 28/01/2026 23:20, NY wrote:
On 28/01/2026 20:49, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
In the 1980s, BT sometimes used a DACS - a frequency-division
multiplexer box - to send several houses' phone lines down a single
copper pair, if pairs were in short supply. My parents have a holiday
cottage in a tiny hamlet in Wensleydale and when they first got a
phone line installed, it used a DACS. When broadband internet was
starting to be introduced, and signals outside the normal 300-3000 Hz
speech needed to be conveyed, BT had to upgrade all those lines to a
separate pair per house, because the DACS was not designed with
broadband in mind.
DACS stopped normal dial-up modems from working as well.
BT's 2Mbps service was called broadband (2005?), but it was slower than
5g is now. Their website was saying "broadband is here" in 2002, so
imagine how slow that was.
https://web.archive.org/web/20020619040045/http://www.bt.com/index.jsp--
On 01/02/2026 12:22, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Sadly (in some ways), language evolves - often in ways that some of us
agreement/contract (and then only in the context of that
agreement/contract).
In contracts it is customary to define *every* technical term used
within the contact to ensure there is as little legal wriggle room as possible.
On 01/02/2026 20:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/02/2026 13:42, Richmond wrote:
BT's 2Mbps service was called broadband (2005?), but it was slower thanBroadband NEVER was ANYTHING to do with download speeds.
5g is now. Their website was saying "broadband is here" in 2002, so
imagine how slow that was.
It was used to refer to the use of wide spectrum RF as a data carrier,
rather than a single frequency, which is called NARROWBAND.
So it relates to the bandwidth of the unmodulated *carrier(s)* rather
that of the modulated signal? I can't remember ever hearing that
distinction when I did my Elec Eng degree. Maybe I wasn't listening...
I suppose you could argue that analogue TV was broadband in the sense
that there was one carrier for the video and another 6 MHz away from it
for FM sound ;-)-a OK, maybe I'm stretching a point...
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[...]
With respect to RF, 'Broadband' would be more accurately calledThat would certainly be less ambiguous in the RF context.
'Wideband'. This is not relevant to the discussion of /data/ rates.
In the data context, what would _you_ consider "broadband" to mean? (I'd
say either "nothing nowadays", or "a data rate significantly higher than
you could get through an audio-band-only modem", which would mean
anything from say 2M upwards.)
Yes, the latter, i.e. better than an audio modem.
On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 08:38:54 +0000, JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> wrote:
I had Netflix included with my broadband but I don't think I have ever watched any of their own stuff.
What is this week's definition of broadband?
In article <10m5r5d$h4sk$1@dont-email.me>,
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
A friend had a Teletype at his home, linked to his work via a rack
mounted modem (quite possibly 300 baud!).
[...]
Hmm. 110 baud rings a bell (sometimies literally!).
The widely-used Model 33 teletype ran at 110 baud. We had one at
school, connected by a modem to a computer belonging to the local
council.
In article <10m5v5k$b5qb$1@artemis.inf.ed.ac.uk>,
Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
In article <10m5r5d$h4sk$1@dont-email.me>,
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
A friend had a Teletype at his home, linked to his work via a rack
mounted modem (quite possibly 300 baud!).
[...]
Hmm. 110 baud rings a bell (sometimies literally!).
The widely-used Model 33 teletype ran at 110 baud. We had one at
school, connected by a modem to a computer belonging to the local
council.
Back in the early 80s I obtained a full sized telex machine. IIRC it
used 2 out of 5 code and +80 -80 volts signalling.
couldn't afford to buy a computer printer for my BBC micro so I
designed a driver board for the user-port and then wrote code in 650s assembler to convert from ascii to 2/5 code.
It worked just fine but it was noisy, slow and very heavy. It was on
the floor in our dining room for some years whilst in service.
Debugging my code printed out on 25 feet of teleprinter paper. :-).
Happy memories.
Bob.
On 10/02/2026 10:34, Bob Latham wrote:[...]
Back in the early 80s I obtained a full sized telex machine. IIRC it
used 2 out of 5 code and +80 -80 volts signalling.
More usual when driven from a micro to have a +80 supply and use a
couple of high voltage transistors to "simulate", so reverse the
direction of current through the coil.
On 10/02/2026 10:34, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <10m5v5k$b5qb$1@artemis.inf.ed.ac.uk>,
Back in the early 80s I obtained a full sized telex machine. IIRC
it used 2 out of 5 code and +80 -80 volts signalling.
More usual when driven from a micro to have a +80 supply and use a
couple of high voltage transistors to "simulate", so reverse the
direction of current through the coil.
At that time I
couldn't afford to buy a computer printer for my BBC micro so I
designed a driver board for the user-port and then wrote code in
650s assembler to convert from ascii to 2/5 code.
Its a 5-bit code, but uses all bits. Perhaps when you say 2 out of
5 you mean 5-bit with two shifts, so letters an figs, as opposed
to Cyrillic teleprinter codes which use three shifts.
It worked just fine but it was noisy, slow and very heavy. It was
on the floor in our dining room for some years whilst in service.
Debugging my code printed out on 25 feet of teleprinter paper.
:-).
So just a short program
In article <10mfa7h$3kh36$1@dont-email.me>,
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:
On 10/02/2026 10:34, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <10m5v5k$b5qb$1@artemis.inf.ed.ac.uk>,
Back in the early 80s I obtained a full sized telex machine. IIRC
it used 2 out of 5 code and +80 -80 volts signalling.
More usual when driven from a micro to have a +80 supply and use a
couple of high voltage transistors to "simulate", so reverse the
direction of current through the coil.
That's what I did.
On 11/02/2026 10:34, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <10mfa7h$3kh36$1@dont-email.me>,
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:
On 10/02/2026 10:34, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <10m5v5k$b5qb$1@artemis.inf.ed.ac.uk>,
Back in the early 80s I obtained a full sized telex machine. IIRC
it used 2 out of 5 code and +80 -80 volts signalling.
More usual when driven from a micro to have a +80 supply and use a
couple of high voltage transistors to "simulate", so reverse the
direction of current through the coil.
That's what I did.
called an H bridge
As you need a resistor in series with the teleprinter magnet, you can
replace two of the transistors with resistors and omit the series
resistor.
Either the two resistors can be in series across the supply with one positive-switching and one negative-switching transistor (in aOr a complementary pair of PNP and NPN...
'totem-pole' arrangement)
or the resistors can form the collector loads
of two negative-switching transistors with the magnet coil between their collectors.
The second option is the easier one to drive from low voltage circuitry
tied to the -ve rail.
As you need a resistor in series with the teleprinter magnet, you
can replace two of the transistors with resistors and omit the
series resistor.
Either the two resistors can be in series across the supply with
one positive-switching and one negative-switching transistor (in a 'totem-pole' arrangement) or the resistors can form the collector
loads of two negative-switching transistors with the magnet coil
between their collectors.
The second option is the easier one to drive from low voltage
circuitry tied to the -ve rail.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 00:02:30 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| Messages: | 196,153 |