I've started a separate thread on this following my thread on Plusnet -v- EE.
I started investigating available packages and despite banner headlines of "Full Fibre" only FTTC is available here. I could spit on the BT and
Giganet manhole covers from my lounge (if I was so vulgar) but they are apparently the wrong sort of manhole. There are 4 houses here served by a private drive (not owned by any of us) and that seems to be blocking point.
I then looked at FTTC (which I have currently) and the packages all offer
a max speed of 14 Mb/s so I did a speed test. I am getting 12 Mb/s, it was 30 when I first moved here 4 years ago but the introduction of full fibre seems to have slowed it down!
I then looked at broadband over the mobile network. I can get 4G indoors from EE but no 5G here. I went to the EE website and they offer both with reasonable speeds (higher than I am currently getting) and prices. I
worked through their website, clicked all the 4G buttons and ended up on a page headed "4G WiFi" which contains a list of 5G packages.
When I tried the help links they suggest going to an EE shop, nothing online.
I know I am getting old but how on earth does a customer find out what the heck is going on?
Starlink. 40 GBP/month, 100 Mbit/sec download. (It seems to have gone up in price recently).
On 2026/5/17 12:5:14, Tweed wrote:
[]
Starlink. 40 GBP/month, 100 Mbit/sec download. (It seems to have gone up in >> price recently).Do they offer any sort of 'phone service? (I know I could use a VoIP
provider [assuming that still works over Starlink]; was just wondering
if they had their own system for voice [and maybe texts].)
I've started a separate thread on this following my thread on Plusnet -v-
EE.
I started investigating available packages and despite banner headlines of "Full Fibre" only FTTC is available here. I could spit on the BT and
Giganet manhole covers from my lounge (if I was so vulgar) but they are apparently the wrong sort of manhole. There are 4 houses here served by a private drive (not owned by any of us) and that seems to be blocking point.
I then looked at FTTC (which I have currently) and the packages all offer
a max speed of 14 Mb/s so I did a speed test. I am getting 12 Mb/s, it was
30 when I first moved here 4 years ago but the introduction of full fibre seems to have slowed it down!
I then looked at broadband over the mobile network. I can get 4G indoors
from EE but no 5G here. I went to the EE website and they offer both with reasonable speeds (higher than I am currently getting) and prices. I
worked through their website, clicked all the 4G buttons and ended up on a page headed "4G WiFi" which contains a list of 5G packages.
When I tried the help links they suggest going to an EE shop, nothing
online.
I know I am getting old but how on earth does a customer find out what the heck is going on?
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I've started a separate thread on this following my thread on Plusnet -v- >> EE.
I started investigating available packages and despite banner headlines of >> "Full Fibre" only FTTC is available here. I could spit on the BT and
Giganet manhole covers from my lounge (if I was so vulgar) but they are
apparently the wrong sort of manhole. There are 4 houses here served by a >> private drive (not owned by any of us) and that seems to be blocking point. >>
I then looked at FTTC (which I have currently) and the packages all offer >> a max speed of 14 Mb/s so I did a speed test. I am getting 12 Mb/s, it was >> 30 when I first moved here 4 years ago but the introduction of full fibre >> seems to have slowed it down!
I then looked at broadband over the mobile network. I can get 4G indoors
from EE but no 5G here. I went to the EE website and they offer both with >> reasonable speeds (higher than I am currently getting) and prices. I
worked through their website, clicked all the 4G buttons and ended up on a >> page headed "4G WiFi" which contains a list of 5G packages.
When I tried the help links they suggest going to an EE shop, nothing
online.
I know I am getting old but how on earth does a customer find out what the >> heck is going on?
Starlink. 40 GBP/month, 100 Mbit/sec download. (It seems to have gone up in price recently).
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I've started a separate thread on this following my thread on Plusnet -v- >>> EE.
I started investigating available packages and despite banner headlines of >>> "Full Fibre" only FTTC is available here. I could spit on the BT and
Giganet manhole covers from my lounge (if I was so vulgar) but they are >>> apparently the wrong sort of manhole. There are 4 houses here served by a >>> private drive (not owned by any of us) and that seems to be blocking point.
I then looked at FTTC (which I have currently) and the packages all offer >>> a max speed of 14 Mb/s so I did a speed test. I am getting 12 Mb/s, it was >>> 30 when I first moved here 4 years ago but the introduction of full fibre >>> seems to have slowed it down!
I then looked at broadband over the mobile network. I can get 4G indoors >>> from EE but no 5G here. I went to the EE website and they offer both with >>> reasonable speeds (higher than I am currently getting) and prices. I
worked through their website, clicked all the 4G buttons and ended up on a >>> page headed "4G WiFi" which contains a list of 5G packages.
When I tried the help links they suggest going to an EE shop, nothing
online.
I know I am getting old but how on earth does a customer find out what the >>> heck is going on?
Starlink. 40 GBP/month, 100 Mbit/sec download. (It seems to have gone up in >> price recently).
Well, Musk has got to get trillionaire status somehow!
Alternatively, he could actually afford to give starlink to everyone for free.
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:Whatever the thoughts about the owner, the system is game changing for
Jeff Gaines <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
I've started a separate thread on this following my thread on Plusnet -v- >>>> EE.
I started investigating available packages and despite banner headlines of
"Full Fibre" only FTTC is available here. I could spit on the BT and
Giganet manhole covers from my lounge (if I was so vulgar) but they are >>>> apparently the wrong sort of manhole. There are 4 houses here served by a >>>> private drive (not owned by any of us) and that seems to be blocking point.
I then looked at FTTC (which I have currently) and the packages all offer >>>> a max speed of 14 Mb/s so I did a speed test. I am getting 12 Mb/s, it was
30 when I first moved here 4 years ago but the introduction of full fibre >>>> seems to have slowed it down!
I then looked at broadband over the mobile network. I can get 4G indoors >>>> from EE but no 5G here. I went to the EE website and they offer both with >>>> reasonable speeds (higher than I am currently getting) and prices. I
worked through their website, clicked all the 4G buttons and ended up on a
page headed "4G WiFi" which contains a list of 5G packages.
When I tried the help links they suggest going to an EE shop, nothing >>>> online.
I know I am getting old but how on earth does a customer find out what the
heck is going on?
Starlink. 40 GBP/month, 100 Mbit/sec download. (It seems to have gone up in >>> price recently).
Well, Musk has got to get trillionaire status somehow!
Alternatively, he could actually afford to give starlink to everyone for
free.
many. Isolated communities all over the planet are suddenly able to
connect. I even noticed one on a food van at the Malvern flower show the other day.
Maybe so, but having core infrastructure at the mercy of and
dependent on someone as immoral as Musk is a risk not worth taking
in my book.
In article <10upkpq$1gp7v$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe so, but having core infrastructure at the mercy of and
dependent on someone as immoral as Musk is a risk not worth taking
in my book.
Do enlighten me why he's immoral? I'm unaware of why you might have
that opinion.
In article <10upkpq$1gp7v$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe so, but having core infrastructure at the mercy of and
dependent on someone as immoral as Musk is a risk not worth taking
in my book.
Do enlighten me why he's immoral? I'm unaware of why you might have
that opinion.
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <10upkpq$1gp7v$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe so, but having core infrastructure at the mercy of and
dependent on someone as immoral as Musk is a risk not worth taking
in my book.
Do enlighten me why he's immoral? I'm unaware of why you might have
that opinion.
Sorry to be rude, but have you been living under a rock over the last five >years?
He called a british rescuer a paedophile on twitter - on what seems like a >whim - who had to take him up court to get him to stop.
He turned twitter into a ring-wing echo chamber making it an unsafe place
for women and any minorities to be present. He refuses to remove any
content nor accounts regardless of how horrendous it is. Only very >reluctantly stopped Grok being used to undress female celebrities.
He tore through the US government with his DOGE team which randomly fired >thousands of people for little reason and no notice (yay, us labour laws). >Claimed he would save $1tn, only $12bn or so can be accounted for. No >improvements in efficiencies have been identified.
These are just off the top of my head, and if that's not enough he has >publicly attacked his own child for being trans. BTW he has at least 14 >children with 4 or 5 different mothers.
I'm also increasingly of the opinion that all billionaires are immoral by >definition.
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <10upkpq$1gp7v$1@dont-email.me>,
Do enlighten me why he's immoral? I'm unaware of why you might
have that opinion.
Sorry to be rude, but have you been living under a rock over the
last five years?
He called a british rescuer a paedophile on twitter - on what seems
like a whim - who had to take him up court to get him to stop.
He turned twitter into a ring-wing echo chamber
making it an unsafe place for women and any minorities to be
present.
He refuses to remove any content nor accounts regardless of how
horrendous it is.
Only very reluctantly stopped Grok being used to undress female
celebrities.
He tore through the US government with his DOGE team which randomly
fired thousands of people for little reason and no notice (yay, us
labour laws). Claimed he would save $1tn, only $12bn or so can be
accounted for. No improvements in efficiencies have been
identified.
These are just off the top of my head, and if that's not enough he
has publicly attacked his own child for being trans. BTW he has at
least 14 children with 4 or 5 different mothers.
I'm also increasingly of the opinion that all billionaires are
immoral by definition.
In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <10upkpq$1gp7v$1@dont-email.me>,
Do enlighten me why he's immoral? I'm unaware of why you might
have that opinion.
Sorry to be rude, but have you been living under a rock over the
last five years?
He called a british rescuer a paedophile on twitter - on what seems
like a whim - who had to take him up court to get him to stop.
He turned twitter into a ring-wing echo chamber
making it an unsafe place for women and any minorities to be
present.
He refuses to remove any content nor accounts regardless of how
horrendous it is.
Only very reluctantly stopped Grok being used to undress female
celebrities.
He tore through the US government with his DOGE team which randomly
fired thousands of people for little reason and no notice (yay, us
labour laws). Claimed he would save $1tn, only $12bn or so can be
accounted for. No improvements in efficiencies have been
identified.
These are just off the top of my head, and if that's not enough he
has publicly attacked his own child for being trans. BTW he has at
least 14 children with 4 or 5 different mothers.
I'm also increasingly of the opinion that all billionaires are
immoral by definition.
Okay, I get it now. So the majority of this boils down to - he's
immoral because he doesn't hold left wing views.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that the problem with left wing
people starts from the fundamental delusion that if you hold left
wing views you are morally superior.
Thanks for answering the question.
Bob.
On 27/05/2026 in message <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me> Chris wrote:
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <10upkpq$1gp7v$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe so, but having core infrastructure at the mercy of and
dependent on someone as immoral as Musk is a risk not worth taking
in my book.
Do enlighten me why he's immoral? I'm unaware of why you might have
that opinion.
Sorry to be rude, but have you been living under a rock over the last five >> years?
He called a british rescuer a paedophile on twitter - on what seems like a >> whim - who had to take him up court to get him to stop.
He turned twitter into a ring-wing echo chamber making it an unsafe place
for women and any minorities to be present. He refuses to remove any
content nor accounts regardless of how horrendous it is. Only very
reluctantly stopped Grok being used to undress female celebrities.
He tore through the US government with his DOGE team which randomly fired
thousands of people for little reason and no notice (yay, us labour laws). >> Claimed he would save $1tn, only $12bn or so can be accounted for. No
improvements in efficiencies have been identified.
These are just off the top of my head, and if that's not enough he has
publicly attacked his own child for being trans. BTW he has at least 14
children with 4 or 5 different mothers.
Those may be reasons for you to consider him immoral but everybody is entitled to their own opinion which may well be different to yours.
I'm also increasingly of the opinion that all billionaires are immoral by
definition.
That's just socialist dogma, they hate successful people, no prole, no votes.
Anyway this sort of political stuff is way OTT for this group so no more from me.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that the problem with left wing
people starts from the fundamental delusion that if you hold left
wing views you are morally superior.
In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <10upkpq$1gp7v$1@dont-email.me>,
Do enlighten me why he's immoral? I'm unaware of why you might
have that opinion.
Sorry to be rude, but have you been living under a rock over the
last five years?
He called a british rescuer a paedophile on twitter - on what seems
like a whim - who had to take him up court to get him to stop.
He turned twitter into a ring-wing echo chamber
making it an unsafe place for women and any minorities to be
present.
He refuses to remove any content nor accounts regardless of how
horrendous it is.
Only very reluctantly stopped Grok being used to undress female
celebrities.
He tore through the US government with his DOGE team which randomly
fired thousands of people for little reason and no notice (yay, us
labour laws). Claimed he would save $1tn, only $12bn or so can be
accounted for. No improvements in efficiencies have been
identified.
These are just off the top of my head, and if that's not enough he
has publicly attacked his own child for being trans. BTW he has at
least 14 children with 4 or 5 different mothers.
I'm also increasingly of the opinion that all billionaires are
immoral by definition.
Okay, I get it now. So the majority of this boils down to - he's
immoral because he doesn't hold left wing views.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that the problem with left wing
people starts from the fundamental delusion that if you hold left
wing views you are morally superior.
Thanks for answering the question.
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,
Okay, I get it now. So the majority of this boils down to - he's
immoral because he doesn't hold left wing views.
He's immoral by any definition. People not accepting that says more
about them then anything else.
Asking people to be decent and not abuse their position is not a
superiority complex.
In article <10v6phk$2or22$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,
Okay, I get it now. So the majority of this boils down to - he's
immoral because he doesn't hold left wing views.
He's immoral by any definition. People not accepting that says more
about them then anything else.
I note the subtle ad hominem put in place there on only the second
sentence. The left wing playbook.
But I'm more than happy to accept that I don't hold left wing views.
Okay I'll tell you what I find deeply immoral.
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <10v6phk$2or22$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,
Okay, I get it now. So the majority of this boils down to - he's
immoral because he doesn't hold left wing views.
He's immoral by any definition. People not accepting that says more
about them then anything else.
I note the subtle ad hominem put in place there on only the second
sentence. The left wing playbook.
But I'm more than happy to accept that I don't hold left wing views.
Okay I'll tell you what I find deeply immoral.
<snip>
Nice attempt at whataboutism. You refuse to acknowledge anything I raised
and simply palmed it off as left-wing dogma.
Now you what me to engage with your political rant that no-one asked for. lol.
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <10v6phk$2or22$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,
Okay, I get it now. So the majority of this boils down to - he's
immoral because he doesn't hold left wing views.
He's immoral by any definition. People not accepting that says more
about them then anything else.
I note the subtle ad hominem put in place there on only the second
sentence. The left wing playbook.
But I'm more than happy to accept that I don't hold left wing views.
Okay I'll tell you what I find deeply immoral.
<snip>
Nice attempt at whataboutism. You refuse to acknowledge anything I raised
and simply palmed it off as left-wing dogma.
Now you what me to engage with your political rant that no-one asked for. lol.
In article <10v6phk$2or22$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> [but hypocritically the worst spammer of them all] wrote:
Okay, I get it now. So the majority of this boils down to - he's
immoral because he doesn't hold left wing views.
He's immoral by any definition. People not accepting that says more
about them then anything else.
I note ...[The usual OT, and irrelevant to your own original point about Elon
From: Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Broadband Over Mobile Network
Date: Wed, 27 May 2026 08:16:29 -0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.6.3 (iPhone/iPod Touch)
Newsgroups: uk.telecom.broadband
Organisation: A noiseless patient Spider
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <10upkpq$1gp7v$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe so, but having core infrastructure at the mercy of and
dependent on someone as immoral as Musk is a risk not worth taking
in my book.
Do enlighten me why he's immoral? I'm unaware of why you might have
that opinion.
Sorry to be rude, but have you been living under a rock over the last
five years?
He called a british rescuer a paedophile on twitter - on what seems
like a whim - who had to take him up court to get him to stop.
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <10v6phk$2or22$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
Bob Latham <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,
Okay, I get it now. So the majority of this boils down to - he's
immoral because he doesn't hold left wing views.
He's immoral by any definition. People not accepting that says more
about them then anything else.
I note the subtle ad hominem put in place there on only the second
sentence. The left wing playbook.
But I'm more than happy to accept that I don't hold left wing views.
Okay I'll tell you what I find deeply immoral.
<snip>
Nice attempt at whataboutism. You refuse to acknowledge anything I raised
and simply palmed it off as left-wing dogma.
Now you what me to engage with your political rant that no-one asked for.
lol.
You gave Bob an example of what you find to be immoral, and he responded in kind. ItrCOs nothing to do with rCOwhatabouteryrCO, itrCOs merely an exchange of
views.
He turned twitter into a ring-wing echo chamber making it an unsafe
place for women and any minorities to be present.
In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
He turned twitter into a ring-wing echo chamber making it an unsafe
place for women and any minorities to be present.
I do apologise, I should have addressed this at the time.
How the blazes can you be "unsafe" reading & writing on your phone?
Do people fear their phones will explode?
Up to the point where Mr. Musk took charge of twitter it was heavily
filtered in favour of the woke left. Posts not with left views were
blocked. It was a left wing echo chamber, you've admitted as much
yourself.
When musk took over he stopped the filtering and bias and allowed
people from the right to speak, he did NOT filter out the left, no
right wing echo chanber. How unreasonable of him, free speech for all
how awful. The light of reality shone in the sacred hall of leftism
like dracula's castle at dawn.
This is why you think people felt unsafe afterwards isn't it? Because
left wing ideology could be called out, challenged, and dismantled by
reality and the world of fantasy collapses. Then all the Snowflakes
ran off to another platform. If they had a decent arguments that
wouldn't happen.
Surely, X is only the cesspit it's made out to be if you choose to
follow the political (and other) ranters (such as Messrs Musk,
Trump, etc. [whichever "side" they're on])? More generally, every
person's X feed is, surely, different, depending on who they
follow; mine contains pictures of cats in shops, word games,
pictures of the sea from a Northumberland window, posts from a
rather fun French lady on the ISS, posts from a rather fun lady
historian, things from the office of national statistics, quotes
from A. A. (and sometimes C. R.) Milne, posts from the University
of Warwick campus cat, BBC headlines, and the occasional advert;
the only (arguably) political posts I take are those from the
Moscow Correspondent, and even those are sometimes him playing the
piano instead (which he's very good at). So I don't see any of the
"cesspit" stuff - and I'm sure I'm not alone.
It's the only _modern_ "social media" I take; I take usenet 'groups
(though not currently any political ones unless you count the
Archers!), which is of course social media, just not one most
people have heard of. I don't like Facebook, not for any
political-type reason but because I can't stand how a Facebook page
works technically; I'm not on Instagram or WhatsApp because I fail
to see what they'd do for me that email (and perhaps text
messaging) don't, and don't want to have yet another thing I have
to follow. I'm not sure what being "on" TikTok would mean; AFAICS
it's just a video thing like YouTube (which I do use, and comment
on, though I've never posted a video there).
In article <10vnmh1$36cu1$2@dont-email.me>,
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
On 2026-06-03 09:08, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <10vnmh1$36cu1$2@dont-email.me>,
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[Many big snips in the quote chain]
WHOOSH! Obviously the entire discussion above went way over your head.
On 2026/6/3 13:58:48, Java Jive wrote:
On 2026-06-03 09:08, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <10vnmh1$36cu1$2@dont-email.me>,
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[Many big snips in the quote chain]
WHOOSH! Obviously the entire discussion above went way over your head.
On 2026-06-04 00:06, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/6/3 13:58:48, Java Jive wrote:
On 2026-06-03 09:08, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <10vnmh1$36cu1$2@dont-email.me>,
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
[Many big snips in the quote chain]
WHOOSH! Obviously the entire discussion above went way over your head.
[Another snip]
You seem to have missed the fact that I was replying to Bob Lie-To-Them,
not you :-)
On 2026-06-01 09:49, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <10v698s$2ke7l$1@dont-email.me>,
Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
He turned twitter into a ring-wing echo chamber making it an unsafe
place for women and any minorities to be present.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 03:42:48 |
| Calls: | 949 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 281,242 |