Definitely OT - nostalgia: phishing/scam letter.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Today, I received a scam letter - a real one, on paper through the post!
It's certainly many years since I have - if ever!

It's basically the "Nigerian email" one (though that often claimed to be
from some prince). It'd be comic if it wasn't (as they all are) a
serious attempt to scam:

It's from "... Managing Director at HSBC Global Private Banking, Hong
Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited." It tells of a huge
amount of money someone's left there, and he's wanting me to help him
get it out as I have the same surname as the person. (OK, mine's
_moderately_ unusual - I think I'm the only one in Kent - but it's far
from unique, especially around Nottingham.) It doesn't quite go as far
as asking me to send him money needed to bribe people to get the money
out (that was the "traditional" Nigerian scam), but does ask me to
contact him - at his @aol.com address! (If I had, I'm sure such requests
would follow.) Oh, and "I asked my wife who is on holiday in Great
Britain ... to help me post this letter". (Which came in a preprinted -
1st class! - envelope, not a stamp.) Contains plenty of poor grammar,
too, and wrong tone.

I did ring HSBC to ask if they'd like a scan of it: rather disappointed
that they didn't. (I did say can I at least give you the email addresses
and 'phone number so you can set the authorities on them, and he took
them, but I suspect only to please me.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... the greatest musical festival in the world that doesn't involve mud.
- Eddie Mair, RT 2014/8/16-22

[kosmo]

On 19.1.24 19:28, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Today, I received a scam letter - a real one, on paper through the post!
> It's certainly many years since I have - if ever!
>
> It's basically the "Nigerian email" one (though that often claimed to be
> from some prince). It'd be comic if it wasn't (as they all are) a
> serious attempt to scam:
>
> It's from "... Managing Director at HSBC Global Private Banking, Hong
> Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited." It tells of a huge
> amount of money someone's left there, and he's wanting me to help him
> get it out as I have the same surname as the person. (OK, mine's
> _moderately_ unusual - I think I'm the only one in Kent - but it's far
> from unique, especially around Nottingham.) It doesn't quite go as far
> as asking me to send him money needed to bribe people to get the money
> out (that was the "traditional" Nigerian scam), but does ask me to
> contact him - at his @aol.com address! (If I had, I'm sure such requests
> would follow.) Oh, and "I asked my wife who is on holiday in Great
> Britain ... to help me post this letter". (Which came in a preprinted -
> 1st class! - envelope, not a stamp.) Contains plenty of poor grammar,
> too, and wrong tone.
>
> I did ring HSBC to ask if they'd like a scan of it: rather disappointed
> that they didn't. (I did say can I at least give you the email addresses
> and 'phone number so you can set the authorities on them, and he took
> them, but I suspect only to please me.)

My Japanese MD received one of these in about 1990 - before it had ever
become a "thing". I suggested that it was unlikely to be real.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

[Sam Plusnet]

On 19-Jan-24 19:28, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Today, I received a scam letter - a real one, on paper through the post!
> It's certainly many years since I have - if ever!
>
> It's basically the "Nigerian email" one (though that often claimed to be
> from some prince). It'd be comic if it wasn't (as they all are) a
> serious attempt to scam:
>
> It's from "... Managing Director at HSBC Global Private Banking, Hong
> Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited." It tells of a huge
> amount of money someone's left there, and he's wanting me to help him
> get it out as I have the same surname as the person. (OK, mine's
> _moderately_ unusual - I think I'm the only one in Kent - but it's far
> from unique, especially around Nottingham.) It doesn't quite go as far
> as asking me to send him money needed to bribe people to get the money
> out (that was the "traditional" Nigerian scam), but does ask me to
> contact him - at his @aol.com address! (If I had, I'm sure such requests
> would follow.) Oh, and "I asked my wife who is on holiday in Great
> Britain ... to help me post this letter". (Which came in a preprinted -
> 1st class! - envelope, not a stamp.) Contains plenty of poor grammar,
> too, and wrong tone.
>
> I did ring HSBC to ask if they'd like a scan of it: rather disappointed
> that they didn't. (I did say can I at least give you the email addresses
> and 'phone number so you can set the authorities on them, and he took
> them, but I suspect only to please me.)

I trust you are going to respond - via a throwaway email address, natch.

--
Sam Plusnet

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <ZeFqN.244488$Wp_8....@fx17.iad> at Sat, 20 Jan 2024
01:22:00, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> writes

>On 19-Jan-24 19:28, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> Today, I received a scam letter - a real one, on paper through the
>>post! It's certainly many years since I have - if ever!

[]

>I trust you are going to respond - via a throwaway email address, natch.
>

No, I CBA. I'm getting old. There was a time when I'd respond to scam
'phonecalls, just to wind them up (and also provide a public service by
occupying their time, so that during that time they couldn't be
bothering someone else), but now I tend just to hang up on them.

Though most of them, just silence (or TV on in the background) usually
kills them; if I get a call around peak scam call hour (around 10:30 a.
m. for me), I pick up but don't say anything; it usually goes to a tone
after a fairly small number of seconds (I guess 4 to 6). I work on the
basis that anyone really calling me would say "hello?" or similar after
a short time - certainly not just hang off.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

live your dash. ... On your tombstone, there's the date you're born and the
date you die - and in between there's a dash. - a friend quoted by Dustin
Hoffman in Radio Times, 5-11 January 2013

[Mike McMillan]

J. P. Gilliver <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <ZeFqN.244488$Wp_8....@fx17.iad> at Sat, 20 Jan 2024
> 01:22:00, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> writes
>> On 19-Jan-24 19:28, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> Today, I received a scam letter - a real one, on paper through the
>>> post! It's certainly many years since I have - if ever!
> []
>> I trust you are going to respond - via a throwaway email address, natch.
>>
> No, I CBA. I'm getting old. There was a time when I'd respond to scam
> 'phonecalls, just to wind them up (and also provide a public service by
> occupying their time, so that during that time they couldn't be
> bothering someone else), but now I tend just to hang up on them.
>
> Though most of them, just silence (or TV on in the background) usually
> kills them; if I get a call around peak scam call hour (around 10:30 a.
> m. for me), I pick up but don't say anything; it usually goes to a tone
> after a fairly small number of seconds (I guess 4 to 6). I work on the
> basis that anyone really calling me would say "hello?" or similar after
> a short time - certainly not just hang off.

We went through a phase with my late Mother of ringing three times and then
hanging up only to ring a second time and continue to ring for her to
answer; the reason was that she was experiencing a long spate of nuisance
calls. (Yes, we had registered her for the TPS but even several years
later, this didn’t seem to be working in her favour.)

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

[Chris J Dixon]

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

>No, I CBA. I'm getting old. There was a time when I'd respond to scam
>'phonecalls, just to wind them up (and also provide a public service by
>occupying their time, so that during that time they couldn't be
>bothering someone else), but now I tend just to hang up on them.

Got a scam email yesterday purporting to be from Virgin. First
clue was that it wasn't to my Virgin email address.

Second clue was that the URL they asked you to use

<VirginMedia.com/my-virgin-media/ch...@cdixon.me.uk/eBilling_errors>

mapped onto something completely different, which I have no
intention of exploring

<https://autodealerhouston.com/ebilling/secure_update/css/>

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
ch...@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <uog3sd$3k7va$1...@dont-email.me> at Sat, 20 Jan 2024 09:30:53,
Mike McMillan <toodl...@virginmedia.com> writes

>J. P. Gilliver <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

[]

>> Though most of them, just silence (or TV on in the background) usually
>> kills them; if I get a call around peak scam call hour (around 10:30 a.
>> m. for me), I pick up but don't say anything; it usually goes to a tone
>> after a fairly small number of seconds (I guess 4 to 6). I work on the
>> basis that anyone really calling me would say "hello?" or similar after
>> a short time - certainly not just hang off.
>
>We went through a phase with my late Mother of ringing three times and then
>hanging up only to ring a second time and continue to ring for her to
>answer; the reason was that she was experiencing a long spate of nuisance
>calls. (Yes, we had registered her for the TPS but even several years
>later, this didn’t seem to be working in her favour.)
>

I think the TPS only applies to this country, so a company only has to
use a foreign call centre to avoid having to give it any heed.

As I've said before, the telcos could easily block most spam calls,
because they have spoofed CLIs when you use 1471 (or caller display if
you have that), but are "unknown" if you try to block them; that
combination ought to be easily detectable. (Genuine number withholders -
like some parts of the NHS - will show as unknown or withheld on both.)
But there's no incentive for the telcos to expend any effort in that
direction.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

By the very definition of "news," we hear very little about the dominant
threats to our lives, and the most about the rarest, including terror.
"LibertyMcG" alias Brian P. McGlinchey, 2013-7-23

[Sam Plusnet]

On 20-Jan-24 18:40, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <uog3sd$3k7va$1...@dont-email.me> at Sat, 20 Jan 2024 09:30:53,
> Mike McMillan <toodl...@virginmedia.com> writes
>> J. P. Gilliver <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
> []
>>> Though most of them, just silence (or TV on in the background) usually
>>> kills them; if I get a call around peak scam call hour (around 10:30 a.
>>> m. for me), I pick up but don't say anything; it usually goes to a tone
>>> after a fairly small number of seconds (I guess 4 to 6). I work on the
>>> basis that anyone really calling me would say "hello?" or similar after
>>> a short time - certainly not just hang off.
>>
>> We went through a phase with my late Mother of ringing three times and
>> then
>> hanging up only to ring a second time and continue to ring for her to
>> answer; the reason was that she was experiencing a long spate of nuisance
>> calls. (Yes, we had registered her for the TPS but even several years
>> later, this didn’t seem to be working in her favour.)
>>
> I think the TPS only applies to this country, so a company only has to
> use a foreign call centre to avoid having to give it any heed.

Even without that.
I don't want to say the TPS is toothless, but you would have to be a
_very_ naughty boy for a long long time before they would trouble you.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Penny]

>On 20-Jan-24 18:40, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> I think the TPS only applies to this country, so a company only has to
>> use a foreign call centre to avoid having to give it any heed.

I have good reason to applaud at least two British companies for
out-sourcing their call centre outside UK office hours. The nice people in
the call centre in India always sent an email after ending the call, which
included dates and times. This helped me prove I had cancelled whatever it
was, within the cut-off date, so I didn't owe them any of the money they
seemed to think I did.

--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <bieqqi5d7idsrcgfl...@4ax.com> at Sun, 21 Jan
2024 15:44:55, Penny <sp...@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes

Oh, I'm fine with companies I have to deal with outsourcing - as long as
the people on the other end can actually communicate in English, that
is. TalkTalk, for example: when I've had to ring for technical help for
an old lady friend (something about her broadband I couldn't figure out,
or at least it was a lot easier to ring them), the Indian (I think) chap
I spoke to was very on the ball technically, and adapted to my level of
comprehension quite well; I've done that at least twice.

It's companies who cold-call - even if not actual scamming - who I think
can ignore the TPS by calling from abroad. Scammers, of course, since
they're committing a crime anyway, will not worry about a little thing
like that.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"This situation absolutely requires a really futile and stoopid gesture be done
on somebody's part." "We're just the guys to do it." Eric "Otter" Stratton (Tim
Matheson) and John "Bluto" Blutarsky (John Belushi) - N. L's Animal House
(1978)

[kosmo]

On 20.1.24 07:43, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <ZeFqN.244488$Wp_8....@fx17.iad> at Sat, 20 Jan 2024
> 01:22:00, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> writes
>> On 19-Jan-24 19:28, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> Today, I received a scam letter - a real one, on paper through the
>>> post!  It's certainly many years since I have - if ever!
> []
>> I trust you are going to respond - via a throwaway email address, natch.
>>
> No, I CBA. I'm getting old. There was a time when I'd respond to scam
> 'phonecalls, just to wind them up (and also provide a public service by
> occupying their time, so that during that time they couldn't be
> bothering someone else), but now I tend just to hang up on them.
>
> Though most of them, just silence (or TV on in the background) usually
> kills them; if I get a call around peak scam call hour (around 10:30 a.
> m. for me), I pick up but don't say anything; it usually goes to a tone
> after a fairly small number of seconds (I guess 4 to 6). I work on the
> basis that anyone really calling me would say "hello?" or similar after
> a short time - certainly not just hang off.

Round here they hang up after that time even if you do speak.

[Serena Blanchflower]

On 20/01/2024 18:40, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> I think the TPS only applies to this country, so a company only has to
> use a foreign call centre to avoid having to give it any heed.
>
> As I've said before, the telcos could easily block most spam calls,
> because they have spoofed CLIs when you use 1471 (or caller display if
> you have that), but are "unknown" if you try to block them; that
> combination ought to be easily detectable. (Genuine number withholders -
> like some parts of the NHS - will show as unknown or withheld on both.)
> But there's no incentive for the telcos to expend any effort in that
> direction.

A few years ago, when I needed to get a new landline phone, I got one
which demands anyone it doesn't recognise announces themselves. I can
then choose to accept or reject the call before they are put through to
me. I have yet to have a scammer or spammer even try to get through;
they clearly just hang up as soon as they're asked to declare
themselves. I got one after my brother had said how well it had
worked, after he and my sil had bought one for his mil, who had dementia
and was all too happy to talk to any scammer.

--
Best wishes, Serena
Q. Why was the Egyptian boy confused?
A. Because his daddy was a mummy.

[Jenny M Benson]

On 28/01/2024 14:06, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>
> A few years ago, when I needed to get a new landline phone, I got one
> which demands anyone it doesn't recognise announces themselves.  I can
> then choose to accept or reject the call before they are put through to
> me.  I have yet to have a scammer or spammer even try to get through;
> they clearly just hang up as soon as they're asked to declare
> themselves.  I got one after my brother had said  how well it had
> worked, after he and my sil had bought one for his mil, who had dementia
> and was all too happy to talk to any scammer.

YANAOU! Only difference is it was my sister who recommended it!

--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK

[Sam Plusnet]

Our landline doesn't have any such defences but we very rarely get spam
calls.
So many 'Young Folk'[1] nowadays don't have landlines, that spammers may
have (for the most part) decided to move on to other methods of cheating
a living.

[1] 'Young Folk' includes anyone ten years younger than me. On a bad
day it's anyone at all.

--
Sam Plusnet

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <iAxtN.290372$PuZ9....@fx11.iad> at Sun, 28 Jan 2024
19:05:50, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> writes
[]

>Our landline doesn't have any such defences but we very rarely get spam
>calls.
>So many 'Young Folk'[1] nowadays don't have landlines, that spammers
>may have (for the most part) decided to move on to other methods of
>cheating a living.

It's obviously very varied! My landline - which is my main line -
doesn't have any such protection either (other than being registered
with the TPS), and I receive plenty of spam calls - none some days,
several others (I think the most has been 5 or 6 in a day). They seem to
peak around 10:30 (a. m.).

>
>[1] 'Young Folk' includes anyone ten years younger than me. On a bad
>day it's anyone at all.
>

next birthday I'll be at the top of my current age bracket (in surveys
and the like). The next one is the top one in some surveys.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Personally, I don't like the Senate idea, I don't like the idea of having to
elect another bunch of overpaid incompetents. I don't like the idea of having
wholesale appointments by the PM of the day for domination of the second
chamber. I like anachronism. I like the idea of a bunch of unelected congenital
idiots getting in the way of a bunch of conmen. - Charles F. Hankel, 1998-3-19.

[Nick Odell]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 01:44:57 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <iAxtN.290372$PuZ9....@fx11.iad> at Sun, 28 Jan 2024
>19:05:50, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> writes
>[]
>>Our landline doesn't have any such defences but we very rarely get spam
>>calls.
>>So many 'Young Folk'[1] nowadays don't have landlines, that spammers
>>may have (for the most part) decided to move on to other methods of
>>cheating a living.
>
>It's obviously very varied! My landline - which is my main line -
>doesn't have any such protection either (other than being registered
>with the TPS), and I receive plenty of spam calls - none some days,
>several others (I think the most has been 5 or 6 in a day). They seem to
>peak around 10:30 (a. m.).

<snip>

Back in the days when I had a land line (which aren't so far away
really) I used a caller display and a voicemail facility. If I didn't
recognise the number I didn't pick up the phone and if it was anybody
who knew me or had legitimate business with me they would leave a
message. When I stuck to that routine the spam calls just fell away.
I've never been a big telephone user anyway and so days would pass
without my receiving any sort of call at all.

Once, I was expecting a call at a particular time and when the phone
rang, I picked it up without checking first. It was, unfortunately,
that now-rarity, the spam call. Only, now that I had picked up the
phone the rate of spam calls instantly picked up to several per day
and it took a couple of months of disciplined nonpickuppery before it
faded away again.

The moral of this story is: don't answer the phone unless you know who
the caller is.

Nick

[kosmo]

I have to buy a new landline phone - one of the current base stations
does not recharge the handset - but there is this rumour that they are
about to be abolished which means I would be wasting my money.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <vm8fri1ogahd6opf0...@4ax.com> at Mon, 29 Jan
2024 13:17:28, Nick Odell <nicko...@yahoo.ca> writes

>On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 01:44:57 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
><G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <iAxtN.290372$PuZ9....@fx11.iad> at Sun, 28 Jan 2024
>>19:05:50, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> writes
>>[]
>>>Our landline doesn't have any such defences but we very rarely get spam
>>>calls.
>>>So many 'Young Folk'[1] nowadays don't have landlines, that spammers
>>>may have (for the most part) decided to move on to other methods of
>>>cheating a living.
>>
>>It's obviously very varied! My landline - which is my main line -
>>doesn't have any such protection either (other than being registered
>>with the TPS), and I receive plenty of spam calls - none some days,
>>several others (I think the most has been 5 or 6 in a day). They seem to

[]

>Back in the days when I had a land line (which aren't so far away
>really) I used a caller display and a voicemail facility. If I didn't
>recognise the number I didn't pick up the phone and if it was anybody
>who knew me or had legitimate business with me they would leave a
>message. When I stuck to that routine the spam calls just fell away.
>I've never been a big telephone user anyway and so days would pass
>without my receiving any sort of call at all.

Interesting ...

>
>Once, I was expecting a call at a particular time and when the phone
>rang, I picked it up without checking first. It was, unfortunately,
>that now-rarity, the spam call. Only, now that I had picked up the
>phone the rate of spam calls instantly picked up to several per day
>and it took a couple of months of disciplined nonpickuppery before it
>faded away again.

... very interesting. So it's the act of picking up that triggers the
increase, even if you don't say anything.

>
>The moral of this story is: don't answer the phone unless you know who
>the caller is.
>
>Nick

Trouble is, that requires caller display, either as separate device or a
'phone with it. I had such a device (I could even record a few seconds
into it associated with each of a number of numbers, so I would tell me
who was calling!), but it died (and I wasn't able to find another of the
same model) (yes, I know lots of 'phones give that sort of functionality
nowadays) - and it's getting too close to the end of POTS to buy now.
I'm looking, slowly, into VoIP (especially since PlusNet _aren't_ going
to be doing it); a firm called "voipfone" look good (and a lot cheaper
than Zen: voipfone are 1.50 a month plus 1p/7p/2p a minute for calls to
UK land/UK mobile/US, or 5 a month including 100 minutes then as above,
or other packages).

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Radio 4 is one of the reasons being British is good. It's not a subset of
Britain - it's almost as if Britain is a subset of Radio 4. - Stephen Fry, in
Radio Times, 7-13 June, 2003.

[Serena Blanchflower]

On 29/01/2024 13:17, Nick Odell wrote:
> Back in the days when I had a land line (which aren't so far away
> really) I used a caller display and a voicemail facility. If I didn't
> recognise the number I didn't pick up the phone and if it was anybody
> who knew me or had legitimate business with me they would leave a
> message. When I stuck to that routine the spam calls just fell away.
> I've never been a big telephone user anyway and so days would pass
> without my receiving any sort of call at all.

Many moons ago, when my ME first came back, I found myself in a double
bind, in that friends, who I did want to hear from, would avoid phoning
me, because they were worried about disturbing me, while double glazing
salesmen and the like, who I didn't want to hear from, had no such
qualms. I fixed this by letting friends and family know that, if I
didn't pick up quickly, they'd go through to my answer phone and, if
they left a message, I'd get back to them when I surfaced. I also let
them know that my bedside phone had the ringer switched off, so I
wouldn't hear the phone if I was asleep.

The problem I had which was fixed by my current system was that, for me,
the main hassle of spam calls was having to get up out of my chair and
walk across the room to check if the call was from someone I knew, and
wanted to talk to. By the time I'd done that, it was generally just as
easy, or easier, to answer the phone and tell a scammer to go away, as
it was to wait to see whether they left a message and then, to listen to
it and decide if I needed/wanted to call back.

--
Best wishes, Serena
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent
revolution inevitable. (John F. Kennedy)

[Joe Kerr]

On 28/01/2024 14:06, Serena Blanchflower wrote:

I read of one person who would hand nuisance calls to his four year old
daughter who was happy to talk to anybody at great length.

--
Ric

[Serena Blanchflower]

On 29/01/2024 15:06, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Trouble is, that requires caller display, either as separate device or a
> 'phone with it. I had such a device (I could even record a few seconds
> into it associated with each of a number of numbers, so I would tell me
> who was calling!), but it died (and I wasn't able to find another of the
> same model) (yes, I know lots of 'phones give that sort of functionality
> nowadays) - and it's getting too close to the end of POTS to buy now.
> I'm looking, slowly, into VoIP (especially since PlusNet _aren't_ going
> to be doing it); a firm called "voipfone" look good (and a lot cheaper
> than Zen: voipfone are 1.50 a month plus 1p/7p/2p a minute for calls to
> UK land/UK mobile/US, or 5 a month including 100 minutes then as above,
> or other packages).

My instinct is that it won't take much for me to just decide to drop my
landline, and it's number, altogether and just use my mobile. Fewer and
fewer people ever use my landline; it's main use is for me to call my
mobile if I've mislaid it around the house. I doubt I can be bothered
to set up a new VoIP system, if/when I lose my current landline, or even
if my current landline phone died on me.

--
Best wishes, Serena
War does not determine who is right - only who is left.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <1dicnZ5CprRlIyr4...@brightview.co.uk> at Mon,
29 Jan 2024 15:06:32, kosmo <ko...@whitnet.uk> writes
[]

>I have to buy a new landline phone - one of the current base stations
>does not recharge the handset - but there is this rumour that they are
>about to be abolished which means I would be wasting my money.
>

It's probably either the power supply for the base station - or, if it's
just the one handset (try switching them around), the rechargeable cells
in the handset (which I would say is the most likely). Both _should_ be
findable: if the power supply, read its volts and amps (which will be on
it, though in tiny print and in black on a black background) and
polarity, and you should be able to find a new such on ebay for very
little (almost certainly more amps; last time I bought such I got one
with a set of selectable voltages set by a screw underneath, as it was
only pennies more and I thought might be useful). If the cell pack, you
might have to buy one that _looks_ the same - possibly not for the same
model; if the 'phone is old enough that it has NiCds rather than NiMHs,
you might have to get the latter - on mine, the charge circuitry though
not designed for the latter didn't blow them up. You need to find one of
the same size, shape, and connector.

Yes, the POTS (plain old telephone system - I think that's what it
really does stand for!) is being phased out: a date of 2025 is sort of
nominal, though some suppliers are doing it earlier (e. g. at next
contract renewal), and I'd be surprised if there aren't a _few_ cases
where it goes on after that. In a lot of cases we'll still get our
broadband over the same wires - especially in rural areas - they'll just
stop connecting the dialling and voice equipment at the exchange end of
the wire, only the broadband. (In practice it'll be a cabinet somewhere
in between in many cases.)

But, in many cases, you'll be able to carry on using your existing
analogue 'phones (and fax machines, answerphones, etc.) - you'll just
plug them (or the master plug of your extension lead network) into your
router, rather than the BT (or "post office"!) master socket. In some
cases you'll need an adapter box, in others that'll be built into the
router (I know it is for Zen's, for example) and all you'll need is a
short lead to convert the plugs (even routers that do have the adapter
box built in tend to have US 'phone sockets on them).

The adapter boxes are currently moderately expensive (unless they're
already built into the router), and it's cheaper to buy a "VoIP 'phone"
that just plugs into the router direct - though if you have several
'phones (etc.), or just dislike throwing out perfectly working kit,
they're still an option. (Some even still work with pulse dialling, so
you can still use your dial 'phone!)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[Joe Kerr]

On 29/01/2024 15:14, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
> On 29/01/2024 13:17, Nick Odell wrote:
>> Back in the days when I had a land line (which aren't so far away
>> really) I used a caller display and a voicemail facility. If I didn't
>> recognise the number I didn't pick up the phone and if it was anybody
>> who knew me or had legitimate business with me they would leave a
>> message. When I stuck to that routine the spam calls just fell away.
>> I've never been a big telephone user anyway and so days would pass
>> without my receiving any sort of call at all.
>
>
> Many moons ago, when my ME first came back, I found myself in a double
> bind, in that friends, who I did want to hear from, would avoid phoning
> me, because they were worried about disturbing me, while double glazing
> salesmen and the like, who I didn't want to hear from, had no such
> qualms.  I fixed this by letting friends and family know that, if I
> didn't pick up quickly, they'd go through to my answer phone and, if
> they left a message, I'd get back to them when I surfaced.  I also let
> them know that my bedside phone had the ringer switched off, so I
> wouldn't hear the phone if I was asleep.
>

My landlines (which are rarely used) have message saying that the caller
is welcome to leave a message but it might be better to call my mobile.
it's a polite way of saying "If you don't have my mobile number I
probably don't want to hear from you".

> The problem I had which was fixed by my current system was that, for me,
> the main hassle of spam calls was having to get up out of my chair and
> walk across the room to check if the call was from someone I knew, and
> wanted to talk to.  By the time I'd done that, it was generally just as
> easy, or easier, to answer the phone and tell a scammer to go away, as
> it was to wait to see whether they left a message and then, to listen to
> it and decide if I needed/wanted to call back.
>


--

Ric

[Joe Kerr]

I read something rather reassuring about this on the BT website recently
(or did I get rerouted to Ofcom?). Apparently regular landlines will
plug into the router and still function. If you don't want your phone
and router adjacent they will supply a wireless adapter that you can
plug your phone in to at a location of your choosing. Other companies
should do something similar.

--
Ric

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <up8fkl$cm2e$2...@dont-email.me> at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 15:18:45,
Serena Blanchflower <nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> writes
[]

>My instinct is that it won't take much for me to just decide to drop my
>landline, and it's number, altogether and just use my mobile. Fewer
>and fewer people ever use my landline; it's main use is for me to call
>my mobile if I've mislaid it around the house. I doubt I can be
>bothered to set up a new VoIP system, if/when I lose my current
>landline, or even if my current landline phone died on me.
>

My impression, looking at voipfone, is that there's minimal setting up
involved - at minimum, you just sign up and use your computer, so it's
like a Skype (or similar) call, though they have ways of using your
mobile or (via an adapter box) existing analogue 'phone which makes it
more versatile.

I like having a landline number - I feel it's more trustworthy, and also
up to now I've never had a monthly contract for a mobile (since I'd use
far less than 5% of the monthly allowance most months), so anything that
put me on hold for tens of minutes would have been expensive.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I'm too lazy to have a bigger ego. - James May, RT 2016/1/23-29

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <up8fe6$gn71$1...@dont-email.me> at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 15:15:15,
Joe Kerr <joe_...@cheerful.com> writes
[]

>I read of one person who would hand nuisance calls to his four year old
>daughter who was happy to talk to anybody at great length.
>

Lovely!

(I do rather like voipfone's solution which starts "all our lines are
busy talking to other telemarketeers ...".)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <up8ii0$h82m$1...@dont-email.me> at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:08:31,
Joe Kerr <joe_...@cheerful.com> writes
[]

>I read something rather reassuring about this on the BT website
>recently (or did I get rerouted to Ofcom?). Apparently regular
>landlines will plug into the router and still function. If you don't
>want your phone and router adjacent they will supply a wireless adapter
>that you can plug your phone in to at a location of your choosing.
>Other companies should do something similar.
>

Ah, so BT's routers have the necessary adapter box built in. (Being BT,
they may even have a UK 'phone socket on the router - do they?) Good to
hear they'll supply the wireless thing. (Which won't work if the power's
off, but nor will the router anyway, so ensure you have alternative
means of calling the emergency services [or the power company! I dial
105 as soon as the power goes off, unless it was a planned outage I'd
been told of].)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[Mike McMillan]

J. P. Gilliver <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

> In message <up8ii0$h82m$1...@dont-email.me> at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:08:31,
> Joe Kerr <joe_...@cheerful.com> writes
> []
>> I read something rather reassuring about this on the BT website
>> recently (or did I get rerouted to Ofcom?). Apparently regular
>> landlines will plug into the router and still function. If you don't
>> want your phone and router adjacent they will supply a wireless adapter
>> that you can plug your phone in to at a location of your choosing.
>> Other companies should do something similar.
>>
> Ah, so BT's routers have the necessary adapter box built in. (Being BT,
> they may even have a UK 'phone socket on the router - do they?) Good to
> hear they'll supply the wireless thing. (Which won't work if the power's
> off, but nor will the router anyway, so ensure you have alternative
> means of calling the emergency services [or the power company! I dial
> 105 as soon as the power goes off, unless it was a planned outage I'd
> been told of].)

Virgin on the rediculous were very surly about the whole business of
changeover to VOIP, so to serve them right, I insisted on the means of
being able to use a ‘phone if and when their network went down the pan. We
were supplied with what is effectively, a phobile moan that is plugged into
the router with an ability to connect us via a sim card if and whenever
there is no network signal. CBA to go and look at the instrument to
ascertain make and model just now.

Whilst writing, I would like to mention a spate of scam mails I have been
forwarding to report@phishing, then blocking and finally deleting which
promise me free Oral B electric tooth brushes as I have ‘won’ from Boots.
AnyotherRats getting these?

[Joe Kerr]

On 29/01/2024 16:25, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <up8ii0$h82m$1...@dont-email.me> at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:08:31,
> Joe Kerr <joe_...@cheerful.com> writes
> []
>> I read something rather reassuring about this on the BT website
>> recently (or did I get rerouted to Ofcom?). Apparently regular
>> landlines will plug into the router and still function. If you don't
>> want your phone and router adjacent they will supply a wireless
>> adapter that you can plug your phone in to at a location of your
>> choosing. Other companies should do something similar.
>>
> Ah, so BT's routers have the necessary adapter box built in. (Being BT,
> they may even have a UK 'phone socket on the router - do they?) Good to

Socket is covered over but it feels like a phone socket.

> hear they'll supply the wireless thing. (Which won't work if the power's
> off, but nor will the router anyway, so ensure you have alternative
> means of calling the emergency services [or the power company! I dial
> 105 as soon as the power goes off, unless it was a planned outage I'd
> been told of].)

I don't normally get power outages. What happens when you dial 105? Is
there a recorded status update?

--
Ric

[Jim Easterbrook]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:09:29 -0000 (UTC), Mike McMillan wrote:

> Whilst writing, I would like to mention a spate of scam mails I have
> been forwarding to report@phishing, then blocking and finally deleting
> which promise me free Oral B electric tooth brushes as I have ‘won’ from
> Boots.
> AnyotherRats getting these?

I had a spate of them, purportedly from Boots and other well known
retailers, but they seem to have died down again now.

--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0

[Joe Kerr]

On 29/01/2024 17:49, Jim Easterbrook wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:09:29 -0000 (UTC), Mike McMillan wrote:
>
>> Whilst writing, I would like to mention a spate of scam mails I have
>> been forwarding to report@phishing, then blocking and finally deleting
>> which promise me free Oral B electric tooth brushes as I have ‘won’ from
>> Boots.
>> AnyotherRats getting these?
>
> I had a spate of them, purportedly from Boots and other well known
> retailers, but they seem to have died down again now.
>

I get two or three genuine emails from Boots every week that I generally
ignore because:
1) They tend to crash my browser.
2) They are under the mistaken and strange belief that spending vast
amounts on cosmetics will somehow enhance my life.

I have been getting regular spam for a year or more after many years
with hardly any. Having an email from a small and rather obscure
American company the spam/scammers assume I belong there so everything
is readily identifiable as relating to American companies or offering
rewards in dollars. They peaked in the run up to Christmas and one day
last week at about 100 per day.

I've not yet worked out what makes them think when I have ignored their
junk for so long that sending me four or five copies a day will induce
me to succumb.

--
Ric

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <up8m48$hsct$1...@dont-email.me> at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:09:29,
Mike McMillan <toodl...@virginmedia.com> writes
[]

>Virgin on the rediculous were very surly about the whole business of
>changeover to VOIP, so to serve them right, I insisted on the means of
>being able to use a ‘phone if and when their network went down the pan. We
>were supplied with what is effectively, a phobile moan that is plugged into
>the router with an ability to connect us via a sim card if and whenever
>there is no network signal. CBA to go and look at the instrument to
>ascertain make and model just now.

Presumably it's something with its own battery (cell). (Does it charge
from the router, or have its own power supply?) Presumably the network
it connects to is Virgin's (though I think they all have to provide 999
connectivity). And of course all those networks will only hold up as
long as the batteries in the base stations - and supporting
infrastructure - will.

>
>Whilst writing, I would like to mention a spate of scam mails I have been
>forwarding to report@phishing, then blocking and finally deleting which
>promise me free Oral B electric tooth brushes as I have ‘won’ from Boots.
>AnyotherRats getting these?
>

No. Presumably they ask you to respond in some way in order to get the
brushes, or do they just get you to turn up at Boots?

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"The wish of the lazy to allow unsupervised access [to the internet] to their
children should not reduce all adults browsing to the level of suitability for a
five-year-old." Yaman Akdeniz, quoted in Inter//face (The Times, 1999-2-10): p12

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <up8ngs$i474$1...@dont-email.me> at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:33:13,
Joe Kerr <joe_...@cheerful.com> writes

>On 29/01/2024 16:25, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

[]

>> Ah, so BT's routers have the necessary adapter box built in. (Being
>>BT, they may even have a UK 'phone socket on the router - do they?)
>>Good to
>
>Socket is covered over but it feels like a phone socket.

PlusNet's one is similar - under a sticker saying Digital Voice
Customers Only, looks like a real UK 'phone socket. Which seems ironic
if PlusNet aren't going to do VoIP. (Especially as they're part of BT!)

>
>> hear they'll supply the wireless thing. (Which won't work if the
>>power's off, but nor will the router anyway, so ensure you have
>>alternative means of calling the emergency services [or the power
>>company! I dial 105 as soon as the power goes off, unless it was a
>>planned outage I'd been told of].)
>
>I don't normally get power outages. What happens when you dial 105? Is
>there a recorded status update?
>

No, it gets through - eventually - to a real human (it's been a while -
I think there's a recorded message about outages locally first, which is
fair enough). It's the same as 0800 31 63 105, just easier to remember.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[Mike McMillan]

J. P. Gilliver <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

> In message <up8m48$hsct$1...@dont-email.me> at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:09:29,
>
>

> Presumably it's something with its own battery (cell). (Does it charge
> from the router, or have its own power supply?) Presumably the network
> it connects to is Virgin's (though I think they all have to provide 999
> connectivity). And of course all those networks will only hold up as
> long as the batteries in the base stations - and supporting
> infrastructure - will.

It has its’ own PSU, this is powered via our grid /Tesla Powerwall circuits
which were nothing else in use, we could probably power it for 50 - 100
years.

>>
>> Whilst writing, I would like to mention a spate of scam mails I have been
>> forwarding to report@phishing, then blocking and finally deleting which
>> promise me free Oral B electric tooth brushes as I have ‘won’ from Boots.
>> AnyotherRats getting these?
>>
> No. Presumably they ask you to respond in some way in order to get the
> brushes, or do they just get you to turn up at Boots?

Dunno, don’t read ‘em before giving them ‘the treatment’.

[Chris J Dixon]

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

>I like having a landline number - I feel it's more trustworthy, and also
>up to now I've never had a monthly contract for a mobile (since I'd use
>far less than 5% of the monthly allowance most months), so anything that
>put me on hold for tens of minutes would have been expensive.

For me the convenience about having a landline is that we have 4
cordless phones around the house, they can all be heard, their
primary design function is to handle speech. They indicate if
there is a missed call or answerphone message, and I am happy to
put one in a pocket when working in the house and garden.

On the contrary, my mobile lives on the kitchen worktop, can only
be heard ringing if you are next to it, and will only let you
know there has been some form of contact if you unlock it and
peer at the screen. I would not want to risk damaging it whilst
at work in the garden.

So, incoming calls preferentially use the landline, outgoing are
mobile, as calls are effectively free. (£3.90 per month is
peanuts)

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
ch...@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.

[Chris]

I hope not!!

Mrs McT

[Serena Blanchflower]

On 29/01/2024 16:00, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>
> I like having a landline number - I feel it's more trustworthy, and also
> up to now I've never had a monthly contract for a mobile (since I'd use
> far less than 5% of the monthly allowance most months), so anything that
> put me on hold for tens of minutes would have been expensive.

When I was in a similar position, I took the opposite view. I had been
paying £5 per month to upgrade my landline free call provision from
"evenings and weekends" to "Any time". Like you, I didn't make a huge
number of calls on it. I realised that the same £5, paid to a mobile
phone company, on a SIM only deal, would give me significantly more free
calls than I was ever likely to use, PLUS more texts and more data than
I was ever going to use. That seemed a better deal to me than paying it
to my ISP.

--
Best wishes, Serena
Light travels faster than sound! That's why some people appear
bright... until you hear them speak!

[Sam Plusnet]

On 29-Jan-24 15:06, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> I'm looking, slowly, into VoIP (especially since PlusNet _aren't_ going
> to be doing it); a firm called "voipfone" look good (and a lot cheaper
> than Zen: voipfone are 1.50 a month plus 1p/7p/2p a minute for calls to
> UK land/UK mobile/US, or 5 a month including 100 minutes then as above,
> or other packages).

Thanks for doing the legwork. I'll note that name for future reference.
P.S. Any idea if you can transfer your existing landline number over to
that VOIP service?

We've had the same landline number for circa 43 years, and for some
distant[1] relatives/friends/etc. it's probably the only way they know
how to contact us (assuming they are still extant of course).

[1] In both senses of the word.

P.S. Following up my own thought.
We have an old fashioned address book - real pages of real paper.
Being of a certain age, there are a number of people in that address
book who are no longer with us, yet I somehow never want to cross them
out. It seems wrong to discriminate against someone simply because they
stopped living.

Other than those who are known to have died, there are the 'Christmas
Card Only' people who now don't send a card in return...
Have they ceased to be? Or simply ceased to be bothered with all the
hassle of sending cards?
Schrödinger entries in the Address Book.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Sam Plusnet]

On 29-Jan-24 17:49, Jim Easterbrook wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:09:29 -0000 (UTC), Mike McMillan wrote:
>
>> Whilst writing, I would like to mention a spate of scam mails I have
>> been forwarding to report@phishing, then blocking and finally deleting
>> which promise me free Oral B electric tooth brushes as I have ‘won’ from
>> Boots.
>> AnyotherRats getting these?
>
> I had a spate of them, purportedly from Boots and other well known
> retailers, but they seem to have died down again now.
>

I don't (& haven't) get/got those, but you remind me of a "gmail"
'thing' that I have recently noticed.
If I hover the cursor over a email in the Inbox, from some company,
Gmail will display an "Unsubscribe" button (it vanishes if you move the
mouse away).

Has anyrat played with this?

When I have grown bored with receiving far too many emails from a
company (Healthspan would often send more than one a day) I would hit
the "Unsubscribe" link at the bottom of the email[1] and get shot of
them that way.

[1] I would only do this with an email from a company I know, and have
dealings with. I don't click on links in any other circumstances.

--
Sam Plusnet

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <49vfri1euvmjvafic...@4ax.com> at Mon, 29 Jan
2024 19:40:12, Chris J Dixon <ch...@cdixon.me.uk> writes
[]

>So, incoming calls preferentially use the landline, outgoing are

>mobile, as calls are effectively free. (Ł3.90 per month is
>peanuts)
>
>Chris

One person's peanuts ... when I bought my current dumbphone at ASDA, I
think in August 2022, I put 10 pounds on it. I think I have over 3
pounds left.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Advertising is legalized lying. - H.G. Wells

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <up91h7$cm2f$1...@dont-email.me> at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:24:06,
Serena Blanchflower <nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> writes

>On 29/01/2024 16:00, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> I like having a landline number - I feel it's more trustworthy, and
>>also up to now I've never had a monthly contract for a mobile (since
>>I'd use far less than 5% of the monthly allowance most months), so
>>anything that put me on hold for tens of minutes would have been expensive.
>
>
>When I was in a similar position, I took the opposite view. I had been
>paying £5 per month to upgrade my landline free call provision from
>"evenings and weekends" to "Any time". Like you, I didn't make a huge
>number of calls on it. I realised that the same £5, paid to a mobile
>phone company, on a SIM only deal, would give me significantly more
>free calls than I was ever likely to use, PLUS more texts and more data
>than I was ever going to use. That seemed a better deal to me than
>paying it to my ISP.
>

I never got to the point where I was paying _extra_ for the "anytime"
calls. One of the (yearly it was then) haggletimes, I accepted a halving
of speed from around 60 umbrellas to around 30 (more than fast enough
for me - there's only me, and I don't download HD movies) for the offer
of, as you say, upgrading from evening-and-weekend to anytime. I was
paying twentysomething altogether for line rental, 30 broadband, and
anytime calls.

The one good thing about the ending of POTS will, I hope, be the end of
ever hearing the phrase "line rental" again. You'll just pay one fee,
for broadband, with variations for speed. (Not counting extras like
content packages.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <ISTtN.248357$Ama9....@fx12.iad> at Mon, 29 Jan 2024
20:27:18, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> writes

>On 29-Jan-24 15:06, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> I'm looking, slowly, into VoIP (especially since PlusNet _aren't_
>>going to be doing it); a firm called "voipfone" look good (and a lot
>>cheaper than Zen: voipfone are 1.50 a month plus 1p/7p/2p a minute
>>for calls to UK land/UK mobile/US, or 5 a month including 100 minutes
>>then as above, or other packages).
>
>Thanks for doing the legwork. I'll note that name for future reference.

Don't bank on my research; I've only looked at two. I asked - in a
PlusNet newsgroup, IIRR - for VoIP recommendations and someone said they
were happy with voipfone; the only other one I looked at was Zen - in
case I have to transfer altogether to them (if PlusNet continue with
their intention not to do VoIP). Zen looked a little more expensive
(than PlusNet) for internet (which I'd accept), but a lot more (compared
to voipfone) for VoIP. Another thing I liked about voipfone - but, based
purely on them claiming this to be the case on their website, so I don't
know if it's actually true - is that they don't advertise at all,
they're growing entirely through word of mouth.

>P.S. Any idea if you can transfer your existing landline number over to
>that VOIP service?

It seems you can, to any VoIP service - both voipfone and Zen claimed
that, anyway. They even suggested (and I've seen it suggested elsewhere,
too) that they can probably claim it back up to (IIRR) 30 days after
you've terminated it with whoever you're with. (That would sort of make
sense: under the present system, when BT etc. cease a number, they keep
it fallow - I think for a few _years_ - before reallocating it. [Though
having said that, I still get the odd call for the previous holder of
the number I have, and I got that in 2007! Actually I'm not sure I have
in the last year, but certainly have this decade.])

>
>We've had the same landline number for circa 43 years, and for some

It has probably gained an extra digit (probably a 2) in that time,
though.

>distant[1] relatives/friends/etc. it's probably the only way they know
>how to contact us (assuming they are still extant of course).
>
>[1] In both senses of the word.
>
>P.S. Following up my own thought.
>We have an old fashioned address book - real pages of real paper.
>Being of a certain age, there are a number of people in that address
>book who are no longer with us, yet I somehow never want to cross them
>out. It seems wrong to discriminate against someone simply because
>they stopped living.

Same here. I also have had such ghosts in electronic address books -
email addresses.

>
>Other than those who are known to have died, there are the 'Christmas
>Card Only' people who now don't send a card in return...
>Have they ceased to be? Or simply ceased to be bothered with all the
>hassle of sending cards?
>Schrödinger entries in the Address Book.
>

Du-du-du-du du-du-du-du ...

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[Wenlock]

Joe Kerr <joe_...@cheerful.com> wrote:
> On 29/01/2024 16:25, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <up8ii0$h82m$1...@dont-email.me> at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:08:31,
>> Joe Kerr <joe_...@cheerful.com> writes
>> []
>>> I read something rather reassuring about this on the BT website
>>> recently (or did I get rerouted to Ofcom?). Apparently regular
>>> landlines will plug into the router and still function. If you don't
>>> want your phone and router adjacent they will supply a wireless
>>> adapter that you can plug your phone in to at a location of your
>>> choosing. Other companies should do something similar.
>>>
>> Ah, so BT's routers have the necessary adapter box built in. (Being BT,
>> they may even have a UK 'phone socket on the router - do they?) Good to
>
> Socket is covered over but it feels like a phone socket.

Feeling’s extra.

[kosmo]

On 29.1.24 15:51, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> It's probably either the power supply for the base station - or, if it's
> just the one handset (try switching them around), the rechargeable cells
> in the handset (which I would say is the most likely).

I did swap them around and changed the batteries in one of the handsets
- so I know it is the base statioin but I cannot see the same design on
ebay. So deferred for now.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <ILmcnXt-a7e2mCf4...@brightview.co.uk> at Wed,
31 Jan 2024 08:30:34, kosmo <ko...@whitnet.uk> writes

>On 29.1.24 15:51, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> It's probably either the power supply for the base station - or, if
>>it's just the one handset (try switching them around), the
>>rechargeable cells in the handset (which I would say is the most likely).
>
>I did swap them around and changed the batteries in one of the handsets
>- so I know it is the base statioin but I cannot see the same design on
>ebay. So deferred for now.
>

I just meant the power supply for the base station - or does the base
station have a mains lead that goes right into it?

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

... "Peter and out." ... "Kevin and out." (Link episode)

[Penny]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:53:29 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6...@255soft.uk>
scrawled in the dust...

>under the present system, when BT etc. cease a number, they keep
>it fallow - I think for a few _years_ - before reallocating it.

Really? Is that a new policy?
When I activated the phone line here, back in 2007, we had endless calls
for the previous user of the number, who seemed to owe a lot of people
money. This continued for at least two years :(
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <8s0lrip4ejtbmltj2...@4ax.com> at Wed, 31 Jan
2024 17:32:26, Penny <sp...@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes

>On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:53:29 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6...@255soft.uk>
>scrawled in the dust...
>
>>under the present system, when BT etc. cease a number, they keep
>>it fallow - I think for a few _years_ - before reallocating it.
>
>Really? Is that a new policy?

I don't know and may be wrong ...

>When I activated the phone line here, back in 2007, we had endless calls
>for the previous user of the number, who seemed to owe a lot of people
>money. This continued for at least two years :(

... it was 2007 when I moved here (and I think got a 'phone number); the
number had belonged to an accountant in the village, but I never got a
_lot_ of calls for her - I can't remember initially (might have been as
many as one a month); by last year it had gone down to one or two a
year. Presumably, though, she'd told her customers what her new number
was, which your previous owner probably hadn't!

I had _thought_ the numbering authority at least _tried_ not to allocate
a recently-in-use number to a new user, to avoid exactly this problem.

Did the number you got previously have links to the address? The number
I got didn't - the previous owner of the home had been a single man, who
presumably had a different number, as I have never had a call trying to
reach him.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There's only so much you can do... with gravel.
- Charlie Dimmock, RT 2016/7/9-15

[Nick Odell]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:27:18 +0000, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:

<snip>

>P.S. Following up my own thought.
>We have an old fashioned address book - real pages of real paper.
>Being of a certain age, there are a number of people in that address
>book who are no longer with us, yet I somehow never want to cross them
>out. It seems wrong to discriminate against someone simply because they
>stopped living.

I agree. I also have a handwritten address book and I feel the same.

However, I eschew electronic diaries and deal with handwritten diary
entries slightly differently. I record birthdays (age and date of
birth as a kind of simple checksum arrangement) wedding anniversaries
and death anniversaries too. The latter I sometimes record for my own
benefit but mostly because if I happen to meet or chat to or email a
friend or relative of the deceased then I try to be mindful that they
may be preoccupied at that time. Especially parents of deceased
children: I doubt anybody really "gets over" that sort of thing.

This has been the first year - but probably won't be the last - when I
have deleted some of those BMG listings - or rather have deliberately
not transferred them. These have been people I didn't know or knew
only slightly but whose memory I was recording in case I
met/chatted/emailed with the friend or relative who was a friend or
relative of theirs. And - if you are still with me - now that friend
or relative has died and, despite assurances from Fleetwood Mac to the
contrary, the chain really is broken.

>
>Other than those who are known to have died, there are the 'Christmas
>Card Only' people who now don't send a card in return...
>Have they ceased to be? Or simply ceased to be bothered with all the
>hassle of sending cards?
>Schrödinger entries in the Address Book.

I never send Christmas or birthday cards in the expectation of
receiving them back but apart from the times when I'm in places where
it's impossible to send real, written things, it's my little way of
letting people know, once or twice a year through a handwritten
message, that I am thinking of them.

It's a steadily diminishing list - as my purveyor of Christmas Cards
is aware. But how do I know when to stop? Sometimes it's logic. One
couple would each have been 117 years old by now. I never expected
them to reply to me but I don't think dropping them from my list was
such a bad thing. Other people I'm in contact with at other times of
the year anyway so I know about their state of health or otherwise and
for the rest, I now tend to write a return address on the back of the
envelope and trust that surviving relatives or the new occupier will
let me know that the addressee has dropped off their perch. It usually
works.

Nick

[kosmo]

On 31.1.24 12:35, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <ILmcnXt-a7e2mCf4...@brightview.co.uk> at Wed,
> 31 Jan 2024 08:30:34, kosmo <ko...@whitnet.uk> writes
>> On 29.1.24 15:51, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> It's probably either the power supply for the base station - or, if
>>> it's  just the one handset (try switching them around), the
>>> rechargeable cells  in the handset (which I would say is the most
>>> likely).
>>
>> I did swap them around and changed the batteries in one of the
>> handsets - so I know it is the base statioin but I cannot see the same
>> design on ebay.  So deferred for now.
>>
> I just meant the power supply for the base station - or does the base
> station have a mains lead that goes right into it?

The base station is working - it is just not charging the handset and if
I swap handsets the one now in the cradle does not charge. So new ones
IF we both to maintain the landline number under VOIP.

[Sam Plusnet]

Sorry for mentioning the obvious, but are the charging contacts on the
base station either coated with something, or bent so that they no
longer make good contact with the phone?
We have some Panasonic cordless phones which are very fussy and unless
you place them back into the cradle 'just so', they fail to make contact
and charge.

--
Sam Plusnet

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <crhlrihokjr2cl232...@4ax.com> at Wed, 31 Jan
2024 22:57:28, Nick Odell <nicko...@yahoo.ca> writes

>On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:27:18 +0000, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:

[]

>>Being of a certain age, there are a number of people in that address
>>book who are no longer with us, yet I somehow never want to cross them

[]

>I agree. I also have a handwritten address book and I feel the same.

(Ditto [several such books, including inherited ones] and my electronic
one.)
[]

>may be preoccupied at that time. Especially parents of deceased
>children: I doubt anybody really "gets over" that sort of thing.

We've just had a discussion in a couple of genealogy 'groups that there
isn't a _single_ word ("bereaved parents" is probably the best _phrase_,
though I think it feels a little forced) to correspond to widow,
widower, and orphan. Apparently the word vilomeh (I may have the
spelling wrong) is gaining traction, but I'd never heard of it.
[]

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The squeamish will squeam a lot.
(Barry Norman on the film "300", in Radio Times 30 March-5 April 2013.)

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <b1CuN.9476$h0q4...@fx02.ams1> at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 00:58:47,
Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> writes

>On 01-Feb-24 0:07, kosmo wrote:
>> On 31.1.24 12:35, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> In message <ILmcnXt-a7e2mCf4...@brightview.co.uk> at
>>>Wed, 31 Jan 2024 08:30:34, kosmo <ko...@whitnet.uk> writes
>>>> On 29.1.24 15:51, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>>> It's probably either the power supply for the base station - or,
>>>>>if it's  just the one handset (try switching them around), the
>>>>>rechargeable cells  in the handset (which I would say is the most likely).
>>>>
>>>> I did swap them around and changed the batteries in one of the
>>>>handsets - so I know it is the base statioin but I cannot see the
>>>>same design on ebay.  So deferred for now.
>>>>
>>> I just meant the power supply for the base station - or does the
>>>base station have a mains lead that goes right into it?
>> The base station is working - it is just not charging the handset
>>and if I swap handsets the one now in the cradle does not charge.  So
>>new ones IF we both to maintain the landline number under VOIP.

Of course, under VoIP - even if you keep the number - you need either a
VoIP-compatible 'phone, or an adapter (though that _may_ be built into
the router).

>>
>Sorry for mentioning the obvious, but are the charging contacts on the
>base station either coated with something, or bent so that they no
>longer make good contact with the phone?
>We have some Panasonic cordless phones which are very fussy and unless
>you place them back into the cradle 'just so', they fail to make
>contact and charge.
>

Very good point; I've come across that, too. Does the handset have a
light on it to show it is charging? That's worth watching as you wiggle,
though I imagine if it does you've already done that.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[Jenny M Benson]

On 01/02/2024 09:37, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Apparently the word vilomeh (I may have the spelling wrong) is gaining
> traction, but I'd never heard of it.

Vilomah, apparently.

--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK

[kosmo]

On 1.2.24 09:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> Very good point; I've come across that, too. Does the handset have a
> light on it to show it is charging? That's worth watching as you wiggle,
> though I imagine if it does you've already done that.

Yes. I think the internal electronics have "gorn".

[Vicky]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2024 10:39:39 +0000, Jenny M Benson
<Nemo...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>On 01/02/2024 09:37, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> Apparently the word vilomeh (I may have the spelling wrong) is gaining
>> traction, but I'd never heard of it.
>
>Vilomah, apparently.

I just had to look it up.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <7XGdnTj_eqhy6Sb4...@brightview.co.uk> at Thu, 1
Feb 2024 10:39:44, kosmo <ko...@whitnet.uk> writes

>On 1.2.24 09:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> Very good point; I've come across that, too. Does the handset have a
>>light on it to show it is charging? That's worth watching as you
>>wiggle, though I imagine if it does you've already done that.
>
>Yes. I think the internal electronics have "gorn".
>

(Base station working, but not charging handset.) I still suspect a
mechanical fault - maybe inside the base station rather than just bent
contacts. Might be worth having a look, if it's screwed together rather
than plastic-welded or snapped-together. If the rest of the base station
is working (presumably providing the wireless connection to the handset)
then its power supply is OK; the circuitry that does the charging is
likely to be very simple (possibly even just a resistor). Compare the
internal arrangement with the base that _does_ charge the handset -
might just be a broken wire. (Though don't break _that_ one!)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The first banjo solo I played was actually just a series of mistakes. In fact
it was all the mistakes I knew at the time. - Tim Dowling, RT2015/6/20-26

[Sam Plusnet]

On 01-Feb-24 9:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> That's worth watching as you wiggle,

Thank you for that John.
If "Watching as you Wiggle" was _not_ a children's TV programme from the
1950s, then it jolly well ought to be.

--
Sam Plusnet

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <83SuN.43837$Qspa...@fx12.ams1> at Thu, 1 Feb 2024
19:13:07, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> writes

Like this radio one?
http://www.seansaunders.co.uk/andrew/bbc/Dancing_with_your_balls.mp3

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I hope you dream a pig.

[Sam Plusnet]

On 02-Feb-24 0:48, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <83SuN.43837$Qspa...@fx12.ams1> at Thu, 1 Feb 2024
> 19:13:07, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> writes
>> On 01-Feb-24 9:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> That's worth watching as you wiggle,
>>
>> Thank you for that John.
>> If "Watching as you Wiggle" was _not_ a children's TV programme from
>> the 1950s, then it jolly well ought to be.
>>
> Like this radio one?
> http://www.seansaunders.co.uk/andrew/bbc/Dancing_with_your_balls.mp3

My Anti-Virus software did _not_ like that link.

--
Sam Plusnet

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <tTavN.50993$Um93....@fx13.ams1> at Fri, 2 Feb 2024
18:54:17, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> writes

Strange; it's mostly just a collection of old audio files, many classic
BBC ones like "the fleet's lit up". Maybe it was the filename it didn't
like? I can email it if you like - it's only 924 KB; it'll certainly
make yo smile!

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If it's nice to look at and it makes you feel good, it's art. - Grayson Perry,
interviewed in Radio Times 12-18 October 2013

[nick]

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

> In message <tTavN.50993$Um93....@fx13.ams1> at Fri, 2 Feb 2024
> 18:54:17, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> writes
>>On 02-Feb-24 0:48, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>> In message <83SuN.43837$Qspa...@fx12.ams1> at Thu, 1 Feb 2024
>>>19:13:07, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> writes
>>>> On 01-Feb-24 9:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>>>> That's worth watching as you wiggle,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for that John.
>>>> If "Watching as you Wiggle" was _not_ a children's TV programme from
>>>>the 1950s, then it jolly well ought to be.
>>>>
>>> Like this radio one?
>>> http://www.seansaunders.co.uk/andrew/bbc/Dancing_with_your_balls.mp3
>>
>>My Anti-Virus software did _not_ like that link.
>>
> Strange; it's mostly just a collection of old audio files, many classic
> BBC ones like "the fleet's lit up". Maybe it was the filename it didn't
> like? I can email it if you like - it's only 924 KB; it'll certainly
> make yo smile!

I think you'll find it works if you replace http with https

Nick

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <093c4c2654325024...@www.novabbs.com> at Fri, 2
Feb 2024 20:36:47, nick <nicko...@yahoo.ca> writes

I just tried - by clicking on the above - and it worked fine. Chrome
does show "Not secure" before the address, but it starts to play anyway.
I then tried with the added s, and Chrome said something like not
secure, with a couple of buttons, one of which was Advanced; clicking on
that let me get to it, but I think it used the http: version anyway.

Presumably different antivirus, browser, and operating system may all
have their own views on whether the user should be allowed to access
http: URLs.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[nick]

Yes. Using this wildly out of date Android/Chrome combination I get a blank white screen with http but a playable page with https

Nick

[Sam Plusnet]

After adding that "s", my anti-virus still refused to load it. It sayeth:

"Your connection to this web page is not safe due to an unmatching
security certificate.
This means that the certificate was issued for a different web address
than the one it is being used for"

--
Sam Plusnet

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <I7hvN.22563$RZad...@fx14.ams1> at Sat, 3 Feb 2024
02:01:11, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> writes

Oh dear, security gone mad. I wouldn't have thought that site _has_ a
security certificate: I get the impression it's been created by a
retired BBC sound person, or a friend of his, long before security
certificates and https: was thought of. My offer to email the file to
anyrat remains; I did wonder about putting that on my site, but am not
sure that'd be permissible. (Incidentally, can you access my site - for
example http://255soft.uk/temp/fanfare.mp3 - which also isn't secure -
though I see if I add the s, it still loads [maybe my hoster covers both
versions]?)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

They'd never heard of me; they didn't like me; they didn't like my speech;
they tutted and clucked and looked at their watches and eventually I sat down
to a thunderous lack of applause. - Barry Norman (on preceding Douglas Bader),
in RT 6-12 July 2013

[Serena Blanchflower]

On 29/01/2024 22:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> I never got to the point where I was paying _extra_ for the "anytime"
> calls. One of the (yearly it was then) haggletimes, I accepted a halving
> of speed from around 60 umbrellas to around 30 (more than fast enough
> for me - there's only me, and I don't download HD movies) for the offer
> of, as you say, upgrading from evening-and-weekend to anytime. I was
> paying twentysomething altogether for line rental, 30 broadband, and
> anytime calls.

A couple of renewals again, I found myself in the slightly bizarre
situation that they offered to significantly reduce the amount of money
they charged me each month, if I was willing to double my line speed up
to sixty-something Mb linespeed. Like you, my usage doesn't require
this, and I'm not convinced I could even notice the difference between
this and my previous 30-odd Mb line but, when they put it like that...
Last time I renewed, it wasn't actually cheaper to get the faster
linespeed but there was no significant saving if I reverted to the
slower speeds.

This leaves me paying in the low to mid twentysomethings for 60+Mb
broadband, with evening and weekend calls.

> The one good thing about the ending of POTS will, I hope, be the end of
> ever hearing the phrase "line rental" again. You'll just pay one fee,
> for broadband, with variations for speed. (Not counting extras like
> content packages.)


--

Best wishes, Serena
10. How much did the pirate pay to get his ears pierced? A buccaneer.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <upllpk$32ggk$1...@dont-email.me> at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 15:23:32,
Serena Blanchflower <nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> writes

>On 29/01/2024 22:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> I never got to the point where I was paying _extra_ for the "anytime"
>>calls. One of the (yearly it was then) haggletimes, I accepted a
>>halving of speed from around 60 umbrellas to around 30 (more than
>>fast enough for me - there's only me, and I don't download HD movies)
>>for the offer of, as you say, upgrading from evening-and-weekend to
>>anytime. I was paying twentysomething altogether for line rental, 30
>>broadband, and anytime calls.
>
>A couple of renewals again, I found myself in the slightly bizarre
>situation that they offered to significantly reduce the amount of money
>they charged me each month, if I was willing to double my line speed up
>to sixty-something Mb linespeed. Like you, my usage doesn't require

Yes, I think I had that one renewal. And/or (can't remember if it was
that or another time) there was a change of a few tens of pence for such
a change.

>this, and I'm not convinced I could even notice the difference between
>this and my previous 30-odd Mb line but, when they put it like that...
>Last time I renewed, it wasn't actually cheaper to get the faster
>linespeed but there was no significant saving if I reverted to the
>slower speeds.
>
>This leaves me paying in the low to mid twentysomethings for 60+Mb
>broadband, with evening and weekend calls.
>

I'd say next haggletime go for a halving to 30 but put the calls up to
anytime, but I think they're stopping landline altogether if they can
(assuming you're talking PlusNet), so they probably won't be keen on
that from now on. Not that I use my landline much at all - must be a few
minutes a month for ordinary calls - but there's always the case of when
you're on hold, which can soon eat away at any allowance. (I've had it
get close to the hour limit on free calls; when talking to friends or
family one can always hang up and redial, but not when on hold.)

>
>
>> The one good thing about the ending of POTS will, I hope, be the end
>>of ever hearing the phrase "line rental" again. You'll just pay one
>>fee, for broadband, with variations for speed. (Not counting extras
>>like content packages.)
>
>
--

J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

DOS means never having to live hand-to-mouse.

[Serena Blanchflower]

On 03/02/2024 15:56, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>>
> I'd say next haggletime go for a halving to 30 but put the calls up to
> anytime, but I think they're stopping landline altogether if they can
> (assuming you're talking PlusNet), so they probably won't be keen on
> that from now on. Not that I use my landline much at all - must be a few
> minutes a month for ordinary calls - but there's always the case of when
> you're on hold, which can soon eat away at any allowance. (I've had it
> get close to the hour limit on free calls; when talking to friends or
> family one can always hang up and redial, but not when on hold.)

If I wanted free calls any time, I would do - or, in all probability
would have done so long ago. As it is, I much prefer using my mobile
and am thinking of switching my landline to go immediately to
answerphone, with a message recommending people call me on my mobile,
but with an option for them to leave me a message and I'll get back to
them. This would allow me to make sure, before I abandon my landline
number altogether, that there's unlikely to be anyone I actually want to
talk to, who doesn't have my mobile number, or any other convenient way
of contacting me.

As it is, it's a distinct possibility that, come next haggle-time (in
about six months), I'll decide to abandon Plusnet. I think I was OK
last time, because I didn't change anything, but the two or three times
before that, it took them several months to work out the billing and to
charge me the right amount. It was starting to get very tedious.

--
Best wishes, Serena
Loving care is not something that those sound in mind and body 'do' for
others but a process that binds us together (Quaker Faith and Practice
12.01)

[Sam Plusnet]

On 03-Feb-24 15:23, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
> On 29/01/2024 22:41, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> I never got to the point where I was paying _extra_ for the "anytime"
>> calls. One of the (yearly it was then) haggletimes, I accepted a
>> halving of speed from around 60 umbrellas to around 30 (more than fast
>> enough for me - there's only me, and I don't download HD movies) for
>> the offer of, as you say, upgrading from evening-and-weekend to
>> anytime. I was paying twentysomething altogether for line rental, 30
>> broadband, and anytime calls.
>
> A couple of renewals again, I found myself in the slightly bizarre
> situation that they offered to significantly reduce the amount of money
> they charged me each month, if I was willing to double my line speed up
> to sixty-something Mb linespeed.  Like you, my usage doesn't require
> this, and I'm  not convinced I could even notice the difference between
> this and my previous 30-odd Mb line but, when they put it like that...
> Last time I renewed, it wasn't actually cheaper to  get the faster
> linespeed but there was no significant saving if I reverted to the
> slower speeds.
>
> This leaves me paying in the low to mid twentysomethings for 60+Mb
> broadband, with evening and weekend calls.

Sounds good. I pay the high twenties for the same thing. I shudda
haggled more earnestly.

--
Sam Plusnet

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <upm6sn$32ggk$2...@dont-email.me> at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 20:15:19,
Serena Blanchflower <nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> writes
[]

>If I wanted free calls any time, I would do - or, in all probability
>would have done so long ago. As it is, I much prefer using my mobile
>and am thinking of switching my landline to go immediately to
>answerphone, with a message recommending people call me on my mobile,
>but with an option for them to leave me a message and I'll get back to
>them. This would allow me to make sure, before I abandon my landline
>number altogether, that there's unlikely to be anyone I actually want
>to talk to, who doesn't have my mobile number, or any other convenient
>way of contacting me.

Sounds you are accustomed to having a monthly mobile contract, so paying
for both that and broadband. I've never had monthly mobile, so it'd be
an extra thing for me (unless I went for internet via mobile, which is
possible, though I gather less satisfactory).

>
>As it is, it's a distinct possibility that, come next haggle-time (in
>about six months), I'll decide to abandon Plusnet. I think I was OK
>last time, because I didn't change anything, but the two or three times
>before that, it took them several months to work out the billing and to
>charge me the right amount. It was starting to get very tedious.
>

Exactly the same here: the actual provision has been very good and
largely problem-free, and I'm rather reluctant to leave that, but having
to bug them to get the bills right after any change (or, this month, out
of the blue), especially now they have the annual increase as another
opportunity to screw things up, is indeed getting tedious. But we'll
see; there's definitely an aspect of "holding on to nurse".

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"When _I_ saw him, he was dead." "uh, he looked exactly the same when he was
alive, except he was vertical." (The Trouble with Harry)

[BrritSki]

On 03/02/2024 15:23, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>
> This leaves me paying in the low to mid twentysomethings for 60+Mb
> broadband, with evening and weekend calls.
>

We are paying mid-30s for a BT full fibre 100 contract which gives us
download speed of around 140 Mbps and seems very reliable. We don't
really need that much, but we did see occasional buffering previously at
50Mbps which has stopped and downloading on e.g. iPlayer is very quick.

We gave up on a landline phone while we were still in Italy about 10
years ago when the service became really poor. We had a landline number
in our first BT contract but never connected a handset to it. Not even
included in the contract any more.

[Kate B]

Mid-forties for Vodafone full fibre 160 Mbps plus unlimited calls/data
mobile. Probably overkill but works without problems in the house and
out, running heating and burglar alarm as well. No need for a landline
and almost no spamcallers on mobile (one every other month if that.
Number blocked, no probs).

--
Kate B

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <l294i6...@mid.individual.net> at Sun, 4 Feb 2024
09:43:34, BrritSki <rtilbur...@gmail.com> writes
[]

>We gave up on a landline phone while we were still in Italy about 10
>years ago when the service became really poor. We had a landline number
>in our first BT contract but never connected a handset to it. Not even
>included in the contract any more.

I can't _remember_ ever having had a problem with a BT landline, over 4x
years of adulthood and numerous addresses; certainly, none here since I
moved in in 2007. It seems to be one of the things that works well, and
comes under "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", but they are too far down
the hell-bent path now.

(Yes, I know the variations, such as "if it ain't broke, it hasn't been
fixed enough".)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Flobalob" actually means "Flowerpot" in Oddle-Poddle.

[Steve Hague]

On 31/01/2024 17:32, Penny wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:53:29 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6...@255soft.uk>
> scrawled in the dust...
>
>> under the present system, when BT etc. cease a number, they keep
>> it fallow - I think for a few _years_ - before reallocating it.
>
> Really? Is that a new policy?
> When I activated the phone line here, back in 2007, we had endless calls
> for the previous user of the number, who seemed to owe a lot of people
> money. This continued for at least two years :(
same here when we came in 2005. The tax man was after him too.

[kosmo]

On 3.2.24 20:15, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
> As it is, it's a distinct possibility that, come next haggle-time (in
> about six months), I'll decide to abandon Plusnet.

My problem is the excessive amount being charged by Sky for having a
dish. Apparently they no longer supply dishes and it is all done over
the t'internet - so with the daughter streaming upstairs and us
downstairs it means that copper is no longer enough to ensure no buffering.

Which means moving away from Plusnet ... I suspect it will be Zzoomm as
there is a termination point close by - but it means new boxes, holes in
wall, probably additional wiring and with a new router getting it to
behave and sorting out the wireless - probably time to replace the
internet over the internal wiring with a proper modern solution.

It is going to be expensive.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <kgWdnTJuM7tzLyL4...@brightview.co.uk> at Sun, 4
Feb 2024 15:53:17, kosmo <ko...@whitnet.uk> writes

>On 3.2.24 20:15, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>> As it is, it's a distinct possibility that, come next haggle-time (in
>>about six months), I'll decide to abandon Plusnet.
>
>My problem is the excessive amount being charged by Sky for having a
>dish. Apparently they no longer supply dishes and it is all done over

Are they still putting stuff onto the satellite for those who already
have a dish?

>the t'internet - so with the daughter streaming upstairs and us
>downstairs it means that copper is no longer enough to ensure no
>buffering.

How old is daughter - will she be leaving home soon, or in a position to
arrange her own internet (over mobile)?

>
>Which means moving away from Plusnet ... I suspect it will be Zzoomm as
>there is a termination point close by - but it means new boxes, holes

Not heard of Zzoomm; I presume they're some sort of fibre-service
purveyor. Or microwave?

>in wall, probably additional wiring and with a new router getting it to
>behave and sorting out the wireless - probably time to replace the
>internet over the internal wiring with a proper modern solution.
>
>It is going to be expensive.
>

(-:

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.

[kosmo]

On 4.2.24 18:01, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <kgWdnTJuM7tzLyL4...@brightview.co.uk> at Sun, 4
> Feb 2024 15:53:17, kosmo <ko...@whitnet.uk> writes
>> On 3.2.24 20:15, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>>> As it is, it's a distinct possibility that, come next haggle-time (in
>>> about six months), I'll decide to abandon Plusnet.
>>
>> My problem is the excessive amount being charged by Sky for having a
>> dish.  Apparently they no longer supply dishes and it is all done over
>
> Are they still putting stuff onto the satellite for those who already
> have a dish?

Oh yes for existing users - but the satellites have a limited life and
that will expire (but perhaps not before I do).

>
>> the t'internet - so with the daughter streaming upstairs and us
>> downstairs it means that copper is no longer enough to ensure no
>> buffering.
>
> How old is daughter - will she be leaving home soon, or in a position to
> arrange her own internet (over mobile)?

40. She left home and then came back. She does have her own streaming
but I think it is over our connection.

>>
>> Which means moving away from Plusnet ... I suspect it will be Zzoomm
>> as there is a termination point close by - but it means new boxes, holes
>
> Not heard of Zzoomm; I presume they're some sort of fibre-service
> purveyor. Or microwave?
>

Fibre to the premises and the only such option around here as far as I
can see.

>> in wall, probably additional wiring and with a new router getting it
>> to behave and sorting out the wireless - probably time to replace the
>> internet over the internal wiring with a proper modern solution.
>>
>> It is going to be expensive.
>>
> (-:


--

[nick]

kosmo wrote:

<snip>

>> How old is daughter - will she be leaving home soon, or in a position to
>> arrange her own internet (over mobile)?

> 40. She left home and then came back. She does have her own streaming
> but I think it is over our connection.

<snip>

Ah. Boomerang Girl.

I had a Boomerang Boy who came back several times. He now has his own home
and family and I think he's settled now.

Nick

[Penny]

On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 09:24:49 +0000, kosmo <ko...@whitnet.uk> scrawled in the
dust...

>On 4.2.24 18:01, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> In message <kgWdnTJuM7tzLyL4...@brightview.co.uk> at Sun, 4
>> Feb 2024 15:53:17, kosmo <ko...@whitnet.uk> writes
>>> On 3.2.24 20:15, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>>>> As it is, it's a distinct possibility that, come next haggle-time (in
>>>> about six months), I'll decide to abandon Plusnet.
>>>
>>> My problem is the excessive amount being charged by Sky for having a
>>> dish.  Apparently they no longer supply dishes and it is all done over

Gosh, I didn't know that. I've never had a contract with Sky - I took their
short-lived 'Pay once, watch forever' deal - which was a blatant lie,
unheard of by most of their staff, and led to a great unpleasantness after
I cancelled the free access to their programmes. It was offered by a local
electrical shop when I wanted a dish.

These days, I only watch TV online if I'm already recording two programmes
and want to watch a third which is on a different umbrella, or the rain is
so bad it is disrupting reception from the dish.

>> Are they still putting stuff onto the satellite for those who already
>> have a dish?
>
>Oh yes for existing users - but the satellites have a limited life and
>that will expire (but perhaps not before I do).

I assume I'm in the same position.

I suppose I should switch to better fibre internet though. My Plusnet
contract has run out and I can stick to the amount I've been paying (or a
little less) if I take the current offering.


--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

[Penny]

On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 12:33:00 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6...@255soft.uk>
scrawled in the dust...

>I can't _remember_ ever having had a problem with a BT landline, over 4x
>years of adulthood and numerous addresses; certainly, none here since I
>moved in in 2007. It seems to be one of the things that works well, and
>comes under "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", but they are too far down
>the hell-bent path now.

Mine is rubbish, and also affected by heavy rainfall. At least I don't get
crossed lines these days, but far too many scammers.

[Penny]

On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 19:53:00 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6...@255soft.uk>
scrawled in the dust...

>In message <8s0lrip4ejtbmltj2...@4ax.com> at Wed, 31 Jan
>2024 17:32:26, Penny <sp...@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes
>>On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:53:29 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6...@255soft.uk>
>>scrawled in the dust...
>>

>>>under the present system, when BT etc. cease a number, they keep
>>>it fallow - I think for a few _years_ - before reallocating it.
>>
>>Really? Is that a new policy?
>

>I don't know and may be wrong ...

>
>>When I activated the phone line here, back in 2007, we had endless calls
>>for the previous user of the number, who seemed to owe a lot of people
>>money. This continued for at least two years :(
>

>... it was 2007 when I moved here (and I think got a 'phone number); the
>number had belonged to an accountant in the village, but I never got a
>_lot_ of calls for her - I can't remember initially (might have been as
>many as one a month); by last year it had gone down to one or two a
>year. Presumably, though, she'd told her customers what her new number
>was, which your previous owner probably hadn't!
>
>I had _thought_ the numbering authority at least _tried_ not to allocate
>a recently-in-use number to a new user, to avoid exactly this problem.
>
>Did the number you got previously have links to the address?

No, somewhere on the most troublesome estate, I imagine.

>The number
>I got didn't - the previous owner of the home had been a single man, who
>presumably had a different number, as I have never had a call trying to
>reach him.

The previous owner of the house had died a year before I bought the place.
She was a local retired pub landlady so I guess most people knew about
that. We did get one hand-delivered Christmas card for her, the year we
moved in.

[Penny]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 18:10:05 +0000, Joe Kerr <joe_...@cheerful.com>
scrawled in the dust...

>I have been getting regular spam for a year or more after many years
>with hardly any. Having an email from a small and rather obscure
>American company the spam/scammers assume I belong there so everything
>is readily identifiable as relating to American companies or offering
>rewards in dollars. They peaked in the run up to Christmas and one day
>last week at about 100 per day.
>
>I've not yet worked out what makes them think when I have ignored their
>junk for so long that sending me four or five copies a day will induce
>me to succumb.

Um, they don't think.
They may have several slightly different versions of your address in their
system. As long as the system works it will keep sending them, at minimal
cost, even if they no longer monitor any of it.

[Nick Odell]

On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 16:16:21 +0000, Penny <sp...@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
wrote:

<snip>

>These days, I only watch TV online if I'm already recording two programmes
>and want to watch a third which is on a different umbrella, or the rain is
>so bad it is disrupting reception from the dish.
>

I know that an umbrella looks a bit like a dish but I think you'd get
better reception if you used the proper thing.

Nick

[Jenny M Benson]

On 05/02/2024 16:38, Penny wrote:
> They may have several slightly different versions of your address in their
> system. As long as the system works it will keep sending them, at minimal
> cost, even if they no longer monitor any of it.

I think it is about 30 years since the county of Clwyd ceased to exist
but it amazes me how many times a website with a postcode lookup to get
an address includes Clwyd in the resulting address. Presumably, if a
new estate is built in, say, Flintshire and is allocated a new postcode,
the lookup will fail.

--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK

[Penny]

On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 16:59:45 +0000, Jenny M Benson <Nemo...@hotmail.co.uk>
scrawled in the dust...

When I first joined Farcebook and told it where I lived, it had never heard
of Welshpool, but took a guess at Shropshire. A while later, it insisted
that all local towns and villages were in Carmarthen. I'm not sure when it
was finally aware of Powys. Maybe the local plod, who have pages there put
them right.

[Mike McMillan]

But the umbrella might be more useful if it is raining heavily…

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

[Mike McMillan]

Someone has to Police the system, or we will all Cop it.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <5r12sipnf9hkmoj56...@4ax.com> at Mon, 5 Feb
2024 16:16:21, Penny <sp...@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes
[]

>Gosh, I didn't know that. I've never had a contract with Sky - I took their
>short-lived 'Pay once, watch forever' deal - which was a blatant lie,
>unheard of by most of their staff, and led to a great unpleasantness after
>I cancelled the free access to their programmes. It was offered by a local
>electrical shop when I wanted a dish.

Why did you cancel something that was free? (I _presume_ continuing to
use it involved some hassle.)

>
>These days, I only watch TV online if I'm already recording two programmes
>and want to watch a third which is on a different umbrella, or the rain is
>so bad it is disrupting reception from the dish.

Multiplex might be the word you're after, at least on FreeView (I don't
know about FreeSat).

>
>>> Are they still putting stuff onto the satellite for those who already
>>> have a dish?
>>
>>Oh yes for existing users - but the satellites have a limited life and
>>that will expire (but perhaps not before I do).
>
>I assume I'm in the same position.

(-:

>
>I suppose I should switch to better fibre internet though. My Plusnet
>contract has run out and I can stick to the amount I've been paying (or a
>little less) if I take the current offering.
>

Unless it's inadequate for your needs, I'd go for that; "same for same
or less" sounds a good deal. (It probably doesn't include landline now,
but I think [I've forgotten who said what] you said you don't really
need that, and if you do, look at voipfone.)

>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

By the very definition of "news," we hear very little about the dominant
threats to our lives, and the most about the rarest, including terror.
"LibertyMcG" alias Brian P. McGlinchey, 2013-7-23

[Paul Herber]

On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 17:18:52 -0000 (UTC), Mike McMillan <toodl...@virginmedia.com>
wrote:

I would design it using fuzzy logic.


--
Regards, Paul Herber
https://www.paulherber.co.uk/

[Sam Plusnet]

Not if it's nailed to the wall & pointed upwards.

--
Sam Plusnet

[kosmo]

Oh yes. This particular daughter left home to move into a house share
but before 5 months were up she was in debt as she was paying more than
her share of the bills. She came home.

She left then to move in with the boyfriend. She came back with the
boyfriend, later husband. A son was born on Christmas Day.

They left and moved into a flat and later moved into a house. There was
a sundering of the marriage vows and she and grandson came home.

The grandson has lived here longer than he has lived anywhere else.
Come to think of it so has she.

[kosmo]

I forgot to add that there is another reason to stick with dish and Sky
box - the good lady wife knows how to use the Sky box, she can make it
record programmes and later she can easily find the recordings and watch
them and she finds the interface particularly friendly.

I am also relaxed to know that if there is nothing on then we can dip
into the recordings and watch things when it suits us and not when it is
on. Whilst I understand that is possible with streaming solutions it is
dependent on the internet working (and that is not 100% at the moment)
and if it saved locally then it can be accessed - if it is hidden behind
a new interface the good lady wife will not have the faintest idea what
is going on and given that in the real world some things expire before
we watch them there is a huge risk that things would not be seen.

[Chris J Dixon]

kosmo wrote:

>I forgot to add that there is another reason to stick with dish and Sky
>box - the good lady wife knows how to use the Sky box, she can make it
>record programmes and later she can easily find the recordings and watch
>them and she finds the interface particularly friendly.
>
>I am also relaxed to know that if there is nothing on then we can dip
>into the recordings and watch things when it suits us and not when it is
>on. Whilst I understand that is possible with streaming solutions it is
>dependent on the internet working (and that is not 100% at the moment)
>and if it saved locally then it can be accessed -

We watch almost everything from Freeview via PVR. Cutting out
ads, prefiguring, recaps, pointless filler material... We must
save hours, but the PVR still hovers close to full.

We only use catch up for the odd item we had no channels free to
record, or some sort of technical snafu (ours or theirs).

My fear is that the broadcasters want to move us all online,
force us to pay and/or watch adverts, and lean on hardware
producers to persuade them not to make boxes that would easily
record the streams.

I know that there are ways to do this, but they are not easily
accessible to non-geeks in the TV room.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
ch...@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.

[Joe Kerr]

On 06/02/2024 09:10, Chris J Dixon wrote:
> kosmo wrote:
>
>> I forgot to add that there is another reason to stick with dish and Sky
>> box - the good lady wife knows how to use the Sky box, she can make it
>> record programmes and later she can easily find the recordings and watch
>> them and she finds the interface particularly friendly.
>>
>> I am also relaxed to know that if there is nothing on then we can dip
>> into the recordings and watch things when it suits us and not when it is
>> on. Whilst I understand that is possible with streaming solutions it is
>> dependent on the internet working (and that is not 100% at the moment)
>> and if it saved locally then it can be accessed -
>
> We watch almost everything from Freeview via PVR. Cutting out
> ads, prefiguring, recaps, pointless filler material... We must
> save hours, but the PVR still hovers close to full.
>
> We only use catch up for the odd item we had no channels free to
> record, or some sort of technical snafu (ours or theirs).
>
> My fear is that the broadcasters want to move us all online,
> force us to pay and/or watch adverts, and lean on hardware
> producers to persuade them not to make boxes that would easily
> record the streams.

It appears that they do. Are you aware of Freely? Some sort of new
online Freeview service.

>
> I know that there are ways to do this, but they are not easily
> accessible to non-geeks in the TV room.
>
> Chris


--

Ric

[kosmo]

I think that recording streams is not easily available and certainly I
doubt that the front end would match the Sky box for the ease of use the
good lady wife prefers.

[Nick Odell]

On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 17:52:39 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6...@255soft.uk>
wrote:

>In message <5r12sipnf9hkmoj56...@4ax.com> at Mon, 5 Feb
>2024 16:16:21, Penny <sp...@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes
>[]
>>Gosh, I didn't know that. I've never had a contract with Sky - I took their
>>short-lived 'Pay once, watch forever' deal - which was a blatant lie,
>>unheard of by most of their staff, and led to a great unpleasantness after
>>I cancelled the free access to their programmes. It was offered by a local
>>electrical shop when I wanted a dish.
>
>Why did you cancel something that was free? (I _presume_ continuing to
>use it involved some hassle.)

<snip>
Have you never cancelled something that was free?

I was given automatic free travel insurance from my bank. Reading the
actual terms and conditions like wot one is supposed to do I saw that
it covered very little that was of use to me but more importantly,
those things were a duplication of a portion of the cover I received
in my paid-for policy and I a)saw no benefit in having duplicate cover
since you can't insure something twice and make a profit out of a
claim and b)I envisaged each company arguing with each other about who
should pay me whilst I sat there waiting for some money so I very
carefully and specifically cancelled the bank policy and asked for a
certificate to show that I had done so.

As it happens, it's all in the past now: the bank wouldn't have
covered me beyond 65 years old and so far (touch wood and everything
else) I haven't had to put making a claim to the test.

Nick

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <bbd5silc0v0trb1hd...@4ax.com> at Tue, 6 Feb
2024 22:51:12, Nick Odell <nicko...@yahoo.ca> writes

>On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 17:52:39 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6...@255soft.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <5r12sipnf9hkmoj56...@4ax.com> at Mon, 5 Feb
>>2024 16:16:21, Penny <sp...@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes
>>[]
>>>Gosh, I didn't know that. I've never had a contract with Sky - I took their
>>>short-lived 'Pay once, watch forever' deal - which was a blatant lie,
>>>unheard of by most of their staff, and led to a great unpleasantness after
>>>I cancelled the free access to their programmes. It was offered by a local
>>>electrical shop when I wanted a dish.
>>
>>Why did you cancel something that was free? (I _presume_ continuing to
>>use it involved some hassle.)
><snip>
>Have you never cancelled something that was free?

Probably.

>
>I was given automatic free travel insurance from my bank. Reading the
>actual terms and conditions like wot one is supposed to do I saw that
>it covered very little that was of use to me but more importantly,
>those things were a duplication of a portion of the cover I received
>in my paid-for policy and I a)saw no benefit in having duplicate cover
>since you can't insure something twice and make a profit out of a
>claim and b)I envisaged each company arguing with each other about who
>should pay me whilst I sat there waiting for some money so I very
>carefully and specifically cancelled the bank policy and asked for a
>certificate to show that I had done so.

That makes sense. I always suspected the free cover was worth little
more than you paid for it. But for something like a free TV service, I
can't ... oh, let me guess: you wanted something from them that had to
be paid for anyway, and you couldn't get it unless you cancelled the
free?

>
>As it happens, it's all in the past now: the bank wouldn't have
>covered me beyond 65 years old and so far (touch wood and everything
>else) I haven't had to put making a claim to the test.

Same here. (Well, I'm not quite 64, but anyway, have never had to claim
on travel insurance. Which would only have ever been the free - I don't
think I've ever bought any. But then I haven't been out of the country
for some time! I suppose you could include breakdown cover, which I have
used - including relay, though that a _long_ time ago.)
>
>Nick
John

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Personally, I don't like the Senate idea, I don't like the idea of having to
elect another bunch of overpaid incompetents. I don't like the idea of having
wholesale appointments by the PM of the day for domination of the second
chamber. I like anachronism. I like the idea of a bunch of unelected congenital
idiots getting in the way of a bunch of conmen. - Charles F. Hankel, 1998-3-19.

[Mike McMillan]

There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

[Serena Blanchflower]

On 03/02/2024 22:06, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <upm6sn$32ggk$2...@dont-email.me> at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 20:15:19,
> Serena Blanchflower <nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> writes
> []
>> If I wanted free calls any time, I would do - or, in all probability
>> would have done so long ago.  As it is, I much prefer using my mobile
>> and am thinking of switching my landline to go immediately to
>> answerphone, with a message recommending people call me on my mobile,
>> but with an option for them to leave me a message and I'll get back to
>> them.  This would allow me to make sure, before I abandon my landline
>> number altogether, that there's unlikely to be anyone I actually want
>> to talk to, who doesn't have my mobile number, or any other convenient
>> way of contacting me.
>
> Sounds you are accustomed to having a monthly mobile contract, so paying
> for both that and broadband. I've never had monthly mobile, so it'd be
> an extra thing for me (unless I went for internet via mobile, which is
> possible, though I gather less satisfactory).

Yes, that's where we came in with this discussion. Faced with the
choice of paying to have Anytime calls on a landline, or having them on
a mobile, you opted to stick with your landline, and not bother with
your mobile, while I made the opposite choice.

>> As it is, it's a distinct possibility that, come next haggle-time (in

>> about six months), I'll decide to abandon Plusnet.  I think I was OK
>> last time, because I didn't change anything, but the two or three
>> times before that, it took them several months to work out the billing
>> and to charge me the right amount.  It was starting to get very tedious.
>>
> Exactly the same here: the actual provision has been very good and
> largely problem-free, and I'm rather reluctant to leave that, but having
> to bug them to get the bills right after any change (or, this month, out
> of the blue), especially now they have the annual increase as another
> opportunity to screw things up, is indeed getting tedious. But we'll
> see; there's definitely an aspect of "holding on to nurse".

Yes, that's very much how I feel.

--
Best wishes, Serena
Q. Why was the Egyptian boy confused?
A. Because his daddy was a mummy.

[J. P. Gilliver]

In message <uq0idr$1c5ab$1...@dont-email.me> at Wed, 7 Feb 2024 18:33:31,
Serena Blanchflower <nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> writes
[]

>Yes, that's where we came in with this discussion. Faced with the
>choice of paying to have Anytime calls on a landline, or having them on
>a mobile, you opted to stick with your landline, and not bother with
>your mobile, while I made the opposite choice.

[]
Since I was already paying for broadband, and was able to negotiate
anytime calls for no more (OK, halving of broadband speed from about 60
to about 30 umbrellas, but that's still far more than I'd ever notice),
whereas I would have noticed it on the fobile, that was a no-brainer.
Until 2025, then it'll be VoIP time, probably with voipfone.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

[What's your guilty pleasure?] Why should you feel guilty about pleasure? -
Michel Roux Jr in Radio Times 2-8 February 2013