Zen full fibre is here!

[Tim+]

Got my email from Zen today telling me that I can now move to full fibre.

A bit disappointed that there’s no equivalent speed tariff (minimum is
100Mbps) and I’m currently on 40Mbps.

I mean, it’s not extortionate by any means (£37.99 excluding phone) for the
speed but I’m a cheapskate and wary of paying for more speed than I need
(40 works absolutely fine for us) AND we’re currently on a “no price
increase promise” contract which is a huge bonus for me as I hate the
regular round of haggling.

Seems like full fibre prices are only quoted for 18 month contracts and no
mention of fixed prices.

Ultimately FTTC will go I suppose but I don’t feel inclined to leave my
present contract without a better priced deal.

Any idea how much longer FTTC will be around once full fibre hits an area?
I’m hoping that better deals may come around when they want to wind up the
copper network but until then, I reckon my best bet is to sit tight.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

[Woody]

I have had figures from Zen - which I posted on here a few weeks ago.
They quote - for Harrogate:
145Mb £29.98
300Mb £32.98
500Mb £38.98
1Gb £47.98
All prices are per month on a 18 month contract, speeds are reciprocal
(i.e. same both ways) and a phone service costs £7 extra.

I am puzzled that you have 40Mb and no phone at £38 when you can have
145Mb and phone for a pound less? Why be wary about having more speed
than you need? You will be amazed how much easier browsing etc is at
high speed. I am on VM and was on 100Mb (actually 110Mb+ most of the
time) and have gone back down to 50Mb to save funds. The difference is
really noticeable.

For the record, I had to renew my contract with VM before it expired
early in July and about two weeks before Zen notified me of FTTP
availability. If VM still increase their prices as they usually do
annually I shall look at the possibility of exiting without penalty if
they still permit such.

[Tim+]

Woody <harro...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On Wed 05/10/2022 19:15, Tim+ wrote:
>> Got my email from Zen today telling me that I can now move to full fibre.
>>
>> A bit disappointed that there’s no equivalent speed tariff (minimum is
>> 100Mbps) and I’m currently on 40Mbps.
>>
>> I mean, it’s not extortionate by any means (£37.99 excluding phone) for the
>> speed but I’m a cheapskate and wary of paying for more speed than I need
>> (40 works absolutely fine for us) AND we’re currently on a “no price
>> increase promise” contract which is a huge bonus for me as I hate the
>> regular round of haggling.
>>
>> Seems like full fibre prices are only quoted for 18 month contracts and no
>> mention of fixed prices.
>>
>> Ultimately FTTC will go I suppose but I don’t feel inclined to leave my
>> present contract without a better priced deal.
>>
>> Any idea how much longer FTTC will be around once full fibre hits an area?
>> I’m hoping that better deals may come around when they want to wind up the
>> copper network but until then, I reckon my best bet is to sit tight.
>>
>
> I have had figures from Zen - which I posted on here a few weeks ago.
> They quote - for Harrogate:
> 145Mb £29.98

Hmm,

£37.99 for a 100Mbps full fibre here in Ayr. Clearly more competition in
Harrogate!

> 300Mb £32.98
> 500Mb £38.98
> 1Gb £47.98
> All prices are per month on a 18 month contract, speeds are reciprocal
> (i.e. same both ways) and a phone service costs £7 extra.
>
> I am puzzled that you have 40Mb and no phone at £38

No, £38 is for the 100Mbps full fibre service (no phone). I’m currently on
£29 for 40 Mbps FTTC with a phone line (call charges extra).

> when you can have
> 145Mb and phone for a pound less?

Why pay £9 more with no included phone line for speed that I don’t need?

> Why be wary about having more speed
> than you need? You will be amazed how much easier browsing etc is at
> high speed. I am on VM and was on 100Mb (actually 110Mb+ most of the
> time) and have gone back down to 50Mb to save funds. The difference is
> really noticeable.

We were with Virgin 80-100 Mbps but found that the extra speed make
virtually no difference to anything we used it for. Certainly wasn’t worth
the £60 a month!

[Theo]

Woody <harro...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I have had figures from Zen - which I posted on here a few weeks ago.
> They quote - for Harrogate:
> 145Mb £29.98
> 300Mb £32.98
> 500Mb £38.98
> 1Gb £47.98
> All prices are per month on a 18 month contract, speeds are reciprocal
> (i.e. same both ways) and a phone service costs £7 extra.

Are they using somebody else's fibre than Openreach? Maybe Cityfibre? OR
don't offer a symmetric service, the uplink speed is heavily reduced.

Theo

[MikeS]

I regularly use two systems - one ~15Mbps, the other ~50Mbps - with the
same Win10 laptop. There is the obvious difference downloading large
files but my normal email and browsing experience which I am satisfied
with is much the same on both. Interestingly, Windows seems to take just
as long downloading its monthly updates with either speed.

Possibly a faster PC is needed to benefit from superfast broadband. If
so a lot of new fibre subscribers are likely to be disappointed.

[Woody]

CityFibre

[Mark Carver]

A friend of mine in Reading attempted to have a service provided on
Cityfibre fibre, first from Voadfone, who tried to send Openreach (there
is no Openreach FTTP there currently !) then via Giganet. Two bods
turned up, took one look at his flat roof extension, and buggered off.
Seems his house is now tagged as 'not possible' on Cityfibre's database.

Anyway, a lucky escape from the muppetry of Vodafone, so every cloud...

[Roderick Stewart]

Go for it. You won't regret it. Don't worry about the extra speed
being vastly in excess of what you normally need. I didn't expect an
increase from 27/5 to 100/20 to make any noticeable difference except
when I needed to download something big, but I was surprised to find
hoew much more responsive everything feels.

Presumably the "no price increase" you speak of means "no price
increase during the 18 month contract". I joined Zen when it was "no
price increase as long as you stay with us", but I understand that
they've discontinued this for new customers now. In my case, the
change to fibre didn't count as a new contract because I'd been with
them for many years, so I continued to pay the same as before, minus
the line rental, so my bills are actually slightly cheaper, even with
the VOIP service included. But even without this advantage, fibre
costs now look comparable with copper, and for a superior service.

My thoughts on waiting till they're winding up the copper network are
that by that time there won't be an option to keep it beyond some
cutoff date, so they'll effectively have a captive audience and won't
have any reason to offer deals to persuade people to change early.
Eventually there will be only a few remaining diehards on copper and
it won't be worth the expense of maintaining it, so you'll have to
change anyway, on their terms.

Rod.

[Tim+]

Roderick Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On 5 Oct 2022 18:15:20 GMT, Tim+ <tim.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Got my email from Zen today telling me that I can now move to full fibre.
>>
>> A bit disappointed that there’s no equivalent speed tariff (minimum is
>> 100Mbps) and I’m currently on 40Mbps.
>>
>> I mean, it’s not extortionate by any means (£37.99 excluding phone) for the
>> speed but I’m a cheapskate and wary of paying for more speed than I need
>> (40 works absolutely fine for us) AND we’re currently on a “no price
>> increase promise” contract which is a huge bonus for me as I hate the
>> regular round of haggling.
>>
>> Seems like full fibre prices are only quoted for 18 month contracts and no
>> mention of fixed prices.
>>
>> Ultimately FTTC will go I suppose but I don’t feel inclined to leave my
>> present contract without a better priced deal.
>>
>> Any idea how much longer FTTC will be around once full fibre hits an area?
>> I’m hoping that better deals may come around when they want to wind up the
>> copper network but until then, I reckon my best bet is to sit tight.
>>
>> Tim
>
> Go for it. You won't regret it. Don't worry about the extra speed
> being vastly in excess of what you normally need.

But why bother at over £100 pa. more?

> I didn't expect an
> increase from 27/5 to 100/20 to make any noticeable difference except
> when I needed to download something big, but I was surprised to find
> hoew much more responsive everything feels.

When we were on Virgin fibre/cable @80 or 100Mbps we really didn’t notice
any worthwhile improvement in responsiveness. Dropping back to 40Mbps
wasn’t a problem.

>
> Presumably the "no price increase" you speak of means "no price
> increase during the 18 month contract". I joined Zen when it was "no
> price increase as long as you stay with us",

That’s what we have. No stated limit as long as we’re with Zen.

> but I understand that
> they've discontinued this for new customers now.

That’s my understanding too.

> In my case, the
> change to fibre didn't count as a new contract because I'd been with
> them for many years, so I continued to pay the same as before, minus
> the line rental, so my bills are actually slightly cheaper, even with
> the VOIP service included. But even without this advantage, fibre
> costs now look comparable with copper, and for a superior service.

Well, as I’ve tried pointing out several times, for me, it’s considerably
more expensive if I move to fibre.

>
> My thoughts on waiting till they're winding up the copper network are
> that by that time there won't be an option to keep it beyond some
> cutoff date, so they'll effectively have a captive audience and won't
> have any reason to offer deals to persuade people to change early.
> Eventually there will be only a few remaining diehards on copper and
> it won't be worth the expense of maintaining it, so you'll have to
> change anyway, on their terms.

Well that’s one possible scenario. The other is that they offer more
tempting deals to get the last customers on copper to give it up.

[Woody]

Why should they do that? Much easier to say your service will cease on
xx/yy/20zz unless you change to FTTP at this price.

[Roderick Stewart]

>> My thoughts on waiting till they're winding up the copper network are
>> that by that time there won't be an option to keep it beyond some
>> cutoff date, so they'll effectively have a captive audience and won't
>> have any reason to offer deals to persuade people to change early.
>> Eventually there will be only a few remaining diehards on copper and
>> it won't be worth the expense of maintaining it, so you'll have to
>> change anyway, on their terms.
>
>Well that’s one possible scenario. The other is that they offer more
>tempting deals to get the last customers on copper to give it up.

Another scenario is that they just switch it off, or wait till the
last copper cable in the cabinet fails (perhaps "encouraging" it to
fail early) and then saying they can only replace it with fibre
because that's all they have - and here's the price...

Rod.

[Tim+]

Well it won’t be Zen ceasing the service I guess but Open Reach who will be
keen to ditch the copper but not keen on the bad publicity from “forcing”
people onto fibre (with its lack of back up during a power cut).

I would thought that from their POV it would be much better if they can
persuade people to switch voluntarily. To that end I would have thought
various “sweeteners” might be offered.

[Tim+]

True, it’s another possibility, but from my POV, I can’t see any downside
to waiting and seeing if the deals become better.

[Martin Brown]

On 06/10/2022 10:38, Tim+ wrote:
> Roderick Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 5 Oct 2022 18:15:20 GMT, Tim+ <tim.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Got my email from Zen today telling me that I can now move to full fibre.
>>>
>>> A bit disappointed that there’s no equivalent speed tariff (minimum is
>>> 100Mbps) and I’m currently on 40Mbps.
>>>
>>> I mean, it’s not extortionate by any means (£37.99 excluding phone) for the
>>> speed but I’m a cheapskate and wary of paying for more speed than I need
>>> (40 works absolutely fine for us) AND we’re currently on a “no price
>>> increase promise” contract which is a huge bonus for me as I hate the
>>> regular round of haggling.
>>>
>>> Seems like full fibre prices are only quoted for 18 month contracts and no
>>> mention of fixed prices.
>>>
>>> Ultimately FTTC will go I suppose but I don’t feel inclined to leave my
>>> present contract without a better priced deal.
>>>
>>> Any idea how much longer FTTC will be around once full fibre hits an area?
>>> I’m hoping that better deals may come around when they want to wind up the
>>> copper network but until then, I reckon my best bet is to sit tight.

I suspect that the two will run in parallel until hell freezes over.
But if you are that price sensitive why are you using Zen as an ISP?

BT have some perfectly good offerings in the full fibre category at
roughly the same price as an ordinary line (less if you haggle).

>> Go for it. You won't regret it. Don't worry about the extra speed
>> being vastly in excess of what you normally need.
>
> But why bother at over £100 pa. more?

How much are you being quoted? BT do 40M guaranteed for about £30pcm and
if you are any good at haggling you can get 100M service for that.

>> I didn't expect an
>> increase from 27/5 to 100/20 to make any noticeable difference except
>> when I needed to download something big, but I was surprised to find
>> hoew much more responsive everything feels.
>
> When we were on Virgin fibre/cable @80 or 100Mbps we really didn’t notice
> any worthwhile improvement in responsiveness. Dropping back to 40Mbps
> wasn’t a problem.

It depends a lot on your usage profile. Some things are incredibly much
quicker.
But then I was previously on wet string internet with 5Mbps typical. The
initial months free trial on 500M was amusing but not worth it for me so
I allowed the speed to drop to 100% of 150Mb (instead of 60% of 500M).

>> Presumably the "no price increase" you speak of means "no price
>> increase during the 18 month contract". I joined Zen when it was "no
>> price increase as long as you stay with us",
>
> That’s what we have. No stated limit as long as we’re with Zen.

OK so you are locked into some historic price deal.

> Well that’s one possible scenario. The other is that they offer more
> tempting deals to get the last customers on copper to give it up.

More likely they will do what they did to my neighbour (which alerted me
to the fact that the full fibre was actually live) and say you have
Hobson's choice - we can't repair you copper line, there are no working
spares back to the exchange. Do you still want a landline if so your
only option is full fibre at this price - take it or leave it.

They took my good copper line off me within a couple of months of
getting full fibre since they are as rare as hen's teeth here.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Roderick Stewart]

On 6 Oct 2022 15:15:18 GMT, Tim+ <tim.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Roderick Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> My thoughts on waiting till they're winding up the copper network are
>>>> that by that time there won't be an option to keep it beyond some
>>>> cutoff date, so they'll effectively have a captive audience and won't
>>>> have any reason to offer deals to persuade people to change early.
>>>> Eventually there will be only a few remaining diehards on copper and
>>>> it won't be worth the expense of maintaining it, so you'll have to
>>>> change anyway, on their terms.
>>>

>>> Well that?s one possible scenario. The other is that they offer more

>>> tempting deals to get the last customers on copper to give it up.
>>
>> Another scenario is that they just switch it off, or wait till the
>> last copper cable in the cabinet fails (perhaps "encouraging" it to
>> fail early) and then saying they can only replace it with fibre
>> because that's all they have - and here's the price...
>
>True, it’s another possibility, but from my POV, I can’t see any downside
>to waiting and seeing if the deals become better.
>
>Tim

They might become better before they become worse, but I wouldn't wait
until you have no choice.

Rod.

[Tim+]

Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
> On 06/10/2022 10:38, Tim+ wrote:
>> Roderick Stewart <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 5 Oct 2022 18:15:20 GMT, Tim+ <tim.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Got my email from Zen today telling me that I can now move to full fibre.
>>>>
>>>> A bit disappointed that there’s no equivalent speed tariff (minimum is
>>>> 100Mbps) and I’m currently on 40Mbps.
>>>>
>>>> I mean, it’s not extortionate by any means (£37.99 excluding phone) for the
>>>> speed but I’m a cheapskate and wary of paying for more speed than I need
>>>> (40 works absolutely fine for us) AND we’re currently on a “no price
>>>> increase promise” contract which is a huge bonus for me as I hate the
>>>> regular round of haggling.
>>>>
>>>> Seems like full fibre prices are only quoted for 18 month contracts and no
>>>> mention of fixed prices.
>>>>
>>>> Ultimately FTTC will go I suppose but I don’t feel inclined to leave my
>>>> present contract without a better priced deal.
>>>>
>>>> Any idea how much longer FTTC will be around once full fibre hits an area?
>>>> I’m hoping that better deals may come around when they want to wind up the
>>>> copper network but until then, I reckon my best bet is to sit tight.
>
> I suspect that the two will run in parallel until hell freezes over.
> But if you are that price sensitive why are you using Zen as an ISP?

Um, customer service. Fixed price deal. No haggling. Price isn’t the *only*
consideration. But as I’m perfectly happy with my current deal and speed, I
see no advantage (at the moment) to a full fibre connection which will cost
me an extra £9 a month.

Well if they do that then clearly I will have to migrate. Until then
though…

[Davey]

On 6 Oct 2022 15:15:18 GMT

Tim+ <tim.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I would thought that from their POV it would be much better if they
> can persuade people to switch voluntarily. To that end I would have
> thought various “sweeteners” might be offered.
>
> Tim

You are talking about BT here, remember. I never saw any good deals
from them when I was with them, in fact their bills were the most
obscure and obtuse it was possible to imagine. Whereas my Zen bills are
easy, they don't change, ever.
--
Davey.

[Tim+]

Davey <da...@example.invalid> wrote:
> On 6 Oct 2022 15:15:18 GMT
> Tim+ <tim.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I would thought that from their POV it would be much better if they
>> can persuade people to switch voluntarily. To that end I would have
>> thought various “sweeteners” might be offered.
>>
>> Tim
>
> You are talking about BT here, remember. I never saw any good deals
> from them when I was with them, in fact their bills were the most
> obscure and obtuse it was possible to imagine.

But how many times in the past have they tried to move a whole country from
one network tech to a totally new one? I think as this is such an major
shift we can’t necessarily assume that past performance is indicative of
future performance.

> Whereas my Zen bills are
> easy, they don't change, ever.

Which is why I’m planning on sitting tight with cheaper FTTC deal with
them. As soon as they offer me a same price deal for fibre I’ll move.

[Ken]

On 5 Oct 2022 18:15:20 GMT, Tim+ <tim.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Got my email from Zen today telling me that I can now move to full fibre.
>

Bastard! I've been on Zen for years and am stuck at 78/19 Mbps.
Openreach has G.Fast in the village and the checkers say I could get
about 160 Mbps, and we also have Gigafast FTTP at up to 1Gb. Zen offer
neither, having quietly dropped selling G.Fast a while back.

It's getting to crunch time. I'll ask Zen one last time what plans
they have to offer something better and then I'll jump ship if
necessary.

[Tweed]

I think the world of deals is vanishing. Most ISPs have worked out there’s
no money to be made out of the cheapskates. We are past the early days of
the industry where claiming huge numbers of customers, with promises of
profits some time in the future, was a driver for recruiting unprofitable
customers. I don’t see Plusnet surviving much longer as BTs budget service.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Fri, 07 Oct 2022 08:55:46 +0100, Ken <k...@birchanger.com> wrote:

>I've been on Zen for years and am stuck at 78/19 Mbps.

Most people wouldn't regard that as "stuck".

It depends on what you're doing with it of course, but in a typical
domestic setup the highest demand will be from TV streaming, and those
speeds are several times what you need for that.

Rod.

[Mark Carver]

On 07/10/2022 09:08, Tweed wrote:
>
> I think the world of deals is vanishing. Most ISPs have worked out there’s
> no money to be made out of the cheapskates. We are past the early days of
> the industry where claiming huge numbers of customers, with promises of
> profits some time in the future, was a driver for recruiting unprofitable
> customers. I don’t see Plusnet surviving much longer as BTs budget service.
>

Ironically, John Lewis this week have announced they are ceasing their
broadband service, which is a 100% 'badged' Plusnet service.

Punters will presumably be migrated to the vanilla Plusnet brand, (if it
lasts that long !)

https://www.johnlewisbroadband.com/

[Mark Carver]

On 07/10/2022 08:55, Ken wrote:
> On 5 Oct 2022 18:15:20 GMT, Tim+ <tim.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Got my email from Zen today telling me that I can now move to full fibre.
>>
> Bastard! I've been on Zen for years and am stuck at 78/19 Mbps.

Some would give up a limb to be 'stuck' at 78/19 !

> Openreach has G.Fast in the village and the checkers say I could get
> about 160 Mbps, and we also have Gigafast FTTP at up to 1Gb. Zen offer
> neither, having quietly dropped selling G.Fast a while back.

 Isn't that because Openreach have abandoned G.Fast  as a product ?

BTW, I've never heard of Gigafast ?

[Bob Eager]

On Fri, 07 Oct 2022 07:37:17 +0000, Tim+ wrote:

>> Whereas my Zen bills are easy, they don't change, ever.

Same here with AAISP. Although my latest bill shows my data allowance has
changed from 8 TB/month to 20TB/month! No extra charge.

> Which is why I’m planning on sitting tight with cheaper FTTC deal with
> them. As soon as they offer me a same price deal for fibre I’ll move.

I got exactly that. I've been checking FTTP availability once a month for
a long time, without much hope. But Trooli have started a big push round
here, so it's kicked OpenReach into action.

I'm paying for a copper pair and enhanced care on it. The amount I save
dumping that covers the increased cost of FTTP!

It was seamless. Fibre in on Tuesday, temporary IP and router allocated
to check it all works. More testing (on my part) on Wednesday. Thursday
morning I spent a short time on the phone while AAISP switched my primary
account to the fibre (and all my fixed IPs). Job done.

I then cancelled the FTTC. The overlap cost me little because AAISP
charge that sort of thing by the day.

The only glitch was that my router was 10 years old (more functional than
the 'free' one) and was maxing out. Had to get a new one.

Now happily on 300/50 for the same price as FTTC!

[Tweed]

Perhaps JL have been forewarned about the demise of Plusnet. Migrate the
customers to vanilla Plusnet. Then when the service gets cut or moved to
BT/EE JL’s customer services don’t have to deal with so many outraged from
Tunbridge Wells types.

[grinch]

On 07/10/2022 09:23, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 07/10/2022 08:55, Ken wrote:
>> On 5 Oct 2022 18:15:20 GMT, Tim+ <tim.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Got my email from Zen today telling me that I can now move to full
>>> fibre.
>>>
>> Bastard! I've been on Zen for years and am stuck at 78/19 Mbps.
> Some would give up a limb to be 'stuck' at 78/19 !

I have just gone from Zen FTTC to FTTP with a 10x speed increase
(300/50) and digital voice for an extra £4.99 a month The 100/20 package
plus digital voice would have been cheaper than FTTC.

>
>> Openreach has G.Fast in the village and the checkers say I could get
>> about 160 Mbps, and we also have Gigafast FTTP at up to 1Gb. Zen offer
>> neither, having quietly dropped selling G.Fast a while back.
>  Isn't that because Openreach have abandoned G.Fast  as a product ?

They certainly where stopping selling it to new customers according to
what I have been told.

>
> BTW, I've never heard of Gigafast ?

Is that the Vodafone product ? Good luck if you have issues.
>
>
>

[David Wade]

On 07/10/2022 08:37, Tim+ wrote:
> Davey <da...@example.invalid> wrote:
>> On 6 Oct 2022 15:15:18 GMT
>> Tim+ <tim.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I would thought that from their POV it would be much better if they
>>> can persuade people to switch voluntarily. To that end I would have
>>> thought various “sweeteners” might be offered.
>>>
>>> Tim
>>
>> You are talking about BT here, remember. I never saw any good deals
>> from them when I was with them, in fact their bills were the most
>> obscure and obtuse it was possible to imagine.
>
> But how many times in the past have they tried to move a whole country from
> one network tech to a totally new one? I think as this is such an major
> shift we can’t necessarily assume that past performance is indicative of
> future performance.

I think they are further on that most people imagine.

>
>> Whereas my Zen bills are
>> easy, they don't change, ever.
>
> Which is why I’m planning on sitting tight with cheaper FTTC deal with
> them. As soon as they offer me a same price deal for fibre I’ll move.

Not sure which service you have, i.e. with or without a phone line. I
believe that if you have a phone line that will disappear but the FTTC
service will remain. This will allow BT/Openreach to remove the copper
backhaul.

>
> Tim
>

Dave

Dave

[Tweed]

Just did a quick survey of pricing based on a friend’s address in Leicester
who is served by CityFibre.
(Speeds in MBits/sec, prices per month)
Vodafone:
41, £19
82, £21
100, £24
200, £30
500, £35
900, £40
Subject to a 3.9% + CPI annual price rise, 24 month contract

Zen:
100, £30
300, £33
500, £39
900, £48
No price rise during 18 month contract

Friend is on Vodafone. Just sent me a Speed test on the 500 service. 397
down 489 up. This to Vf’s own test server. So some contention on the
downlink.

[Woody]

Not much difference in price but:-
Zen have UK (and very good) support
Zen provide a static address as standard

I know where I would go!

[Martin Brown]

I'm not sure that a fixed IP address is all that important these days
unless you are running your own eg mail servers (a rare pastime now).

The fibre infrastructure is sufficiently reliable that Zen's ability to
beat up OR is much less important than it was with fickle copper wires.

ISTR BT's book price for 100M is £35 but you can always haggle.
Basically ask for one tier below what you actually want and reluctantly
allow yourself to be upsold to the next highest tier at a discount.
That way everybody is happy and the sales droid gets their upsell bonus.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 08:43:53 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

>The fibre infrastructure is sufficiently reliable that Zen's ability to
>beat up OR is much less important than it was with fickle copper wires.

Has the fibre infrastructure been in existence long enough for it to
be known how reliable it will be?

Even if the external infrastructure turns out to require less long
term attention, we need to consider the possible consequences of the
fact that a domestic fibre installation includes more stuff that the
householder will be unable to repair himself. This needn't be a
problem as long as we're mindful of it, and take appropriate care, but
then not everybody does. Time will tell how much of an issue the
ocasional need for repair and rerouting of domestic optical cabling
turns out to be. Who knows, maybe one day it'll be so commonplace that
you can buy a cheap fusion splicer from Amazon.

Rod.

[Woody]

It is if you want to run your own (thus free) VPN - as I do using a
RPi4. ATM although in theory I have a variable external address from VM
I am still on the same address I was over a decade ago. I also have a
RPI Zero W running DuckDNS that checks it every minute or two just to
make sure.

[Woody]

There is always the issue that Joe Public doesn't know a fibre from a
cream cake and in particular can't tell whether the broadband has failed
or it is just wi-fi CCI*. Run a Voip phone on the service (or for that
matter connect your laptop or PC by Ethernet) and you can be sure.
Contrary to the trending belief within the M25, not everyone has only a
mobile - many many people (and not just the grey haired brigade) still
have a landline.

*Co-Channel Interference

[Ken]

Have they? Even so, Zen could have said they were dropping the
product. It seems to still be available from other resellers.

>BTW, I've never heard of Gigafast ?
>
>

That's because I mistyped - it should be Gigaclear. They won the
contract to install fibre to rural communities in this part of Essex.
They have few resellers and their reputation for customer service
doesn't seem great.

When I make enquiries to resellers about taking up the service they
seem to go quiet. My village already had superfast broadband, by the
definition of the day, so Gigaclear installed fibre as 'commercial
infill'. This seems to now be causing confusion in some quarters.

[Tweed]

Pretty much every landline user these days uses a DECT phone. Many (most
soon?) domestic routers have DECT base stations in them.

Actually almost everyone does have a mobile phone:

https://dontdisappoint.me.uk/resources/electronics/smartphone-usage-statistics-uk/

92% of UK adults own a smartphone in 2022.
95% of smartphone owners use their mobile every day.
Brits spent an average of 3 hours and 23 minutes a day on their phones.
50% of 10-year-olds in the UK owned a smartphone in 2019.
Android operating system holds 45.04% of the mobile market share in the UK.
Retail UK mobile phone revenue stood at £3.2 billion in Q2 2020.
In 2022, there were 63.2 million mobile internet users in the UK. `
48% of UK citizens use their phone to make voice calls more than once a
day.

[Abandoned_Trolley]

>
> https://dontdisappoint.me.uk/resources/electronics/smartphone-usage-statistics-uk/
>
> 92% of UK adults own a smartphone in 2022.
> 95% of smartphone owners use their mobile every day.
> Brits spent an average of 3 hours and 23 minutes a day on their phones.
> 50% of 10-year-olds in the UK owned a smartphone in 2019.
> Android operating system holds 45.04% of the mobile market share in the UK.
> Retail UK mobile phone revenue stood at £3.2 billion in Q2 2020.
> In 2022, there were 63.2 million mobile internet users in the UK. `
> 48% of UK citizens use their phone to make voice calls more than once a
> day.
>
>

Any landline usage statistics to compare it with ?

... its not a zero sum game

--
random signature text inserted here

[Tweed]

No idea. I was just disputing the implication that mobile phone usage was
an inside the M25 thing. If the figures are to be believed 87% of the adult
population use a smartphone every day. That’s quite a statistic. Of the 13%
who don’t I wonder how many can’t use any sort of phone? Eg folk in nursing
homes, prisoners (well not supposed to have freely available access!) etc.

[David Wade]

On 08/10/2022 12:38, Tweed wrote:
> Abandoned_Trolley <fr...@fred-smith.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> https://dontdisappoint.me.uk/resources/electronics/smartphone-usage-statistics-uk/
>>>
>>> 92% of UK adults own a smartphone in 2022.
>>> 95% of smartphone owners use their mobile every day.
>>> Brits spent an average of 3 hours and 23 minutes a day on their phones.
>>> 50% of 10-year-olds in the UK owned a smartphone in 2019.
>>> Android operating system holds 45.04% of the mobile market share in the UK.
>>> Retail UK mobile phone revenue stood at £3.2 billion in Q2 2020.
>>> In 2022, there were 63.2 million mobile internet users in the UK. `
>>> 48% of UK citizens use their phone to make voice calls more than once a
>>> day.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Any landline usage statistics to compare it with ?
>>
>> ... its not a zero sum game
>>

If 999 call usage is an indicator 74% of calls came from mobiles 26%
from landlines. I expect this is a fair indicator of general usage.

I have a landline, and can make calls on it, but generally don't because
it would cost. Like many I get unlimited calls included in my mobile
contract, so no way am I paying twice, but I would use it for a 999 call
and I imagine others would.

My landlines is expensive. I would love to migrate my number to VOIP but
it looks like BT is making this hard, presumably because they nned to
buy infrastructure to implement it.

For me the biggest downside to moving to voip service is loss of number.

>
> No idea. I was just disputing the implication that mobile phone usage was
> an inside the M25 thing. If the figures are to be believed 87% of the adult
> population use a smartphone every day. That’s quite a statistic. Of the 13%
> who don’t I wonder how many can’t use any sort of phone? Eg folk in nursing
> homes, prisoners (well not supposed to have freely available access!) etc.
>

Dave

[Tweed]

You can easily migrate your landline number to Sipgate. They charge a one
off £30 or so. After that the only thing you pay is a very small per second
charge for outgoing calls. It’s a very thorough outfit run by a well
organised German company. I migrated my mother’s line when she died,
firstly to mop up any inbound calls of importance, and because it held
sentimental value. We’ve had that number in the family since I was born. It
was previously a BT number. Sipgate even waived the £30 fee when I
explained the circumstances.

[Chris Green]

David Wade <g4...@dave.invalid> wrote:
[snip]

>
> I have a landline, and can make calls on it, but generally don't because
> it would cost. Like many I get unlimited calls included in my mobile
> contract, so no way am I paying twice, but I would use it for a 999 call
> and I imagine others would.
>
> My landlines is expensive. I would love to migrate my number to VOIP but
> it looks like BT is making this hard, presumably because they nned to
> buy infrastructure to implement it.
>

I really find this strange to understand.

We get unlimited calls calls to UK landlines (including 0845 and
0870), plus 2000 minutes of calls to mobiles for £10.28 a month from
Plusnet with our broadband from them.

I could get unlimited calls with my mobile but the landline is much more
reliable and easy to use where we live. The mobile cost would be comparable
to the above landline cost anyway.

So for me it makes more sense (and is just as cheap) to have a PAYGO
mobile and the above deal from PlusNet.

I could thus say "I have a mobile, and can make calls on it, but
generally don't because it would cost". :-)

--
Chris Green
·

[Woody]

Try reading again what I wrote AT. I referred to people that ONLY have a
mobile, and I suggest that many of those occupy the south east of our
fair counytry. There could be and probably is a decent percentage of the
mobile ownership that you quote also have a landline at home, not least
those that are on VM who have a landline because the contract is cheaper
than broadband alone.

[Woody]

I would think Dave that the high percentage of emergency calls
originating from mobiles are related to traffic incidents.

I am a little bit puzzled about your comments re Voip. Are you saying
that you have BT (broadband) and would like to migrate your BT phone to
Voip operation? I would guess that it is because your serving exchange
cannot provide the service.

In terms of porting your line number to a Voip service provider (VSP)
all you need to do is open an account with a VSP (such as Sipgate or
Voipcheap) and set up a service. You will need an Analogue Telephone
Adapter such as a PAP2T to convert your line phone to Voip, or put a
Voip app such as Zoiper or Mizudroid on your mobile. Then tell your VSP
that you want them to take over your landline number and, in theory at
least, they should do the rest.
But I could be wrong of course!

[Tweed]

Sorry, I did misread your post. However, you really need to differentiate
those that have a landline and those that have a landline in active use for
voice . Huge numbers of people, mainly younger ones, have a landline to
provision broadband, but don’t have a phone plugged in. It’s not a
geographic thing, it’s an age thing. Virgin Media have largely given up on
making their broadband packages cheaper if you add a landline. They’ve
realised there’s little call income to be made these days,

[Abandoned_Trolley]

>
> Try reading again what I wrote AT. I referred to people that ONLY have a
> mobile, and I suggest that many of those occupy the south east of our
> fair counytry. There could be and probably is a decent percentage of the
> mobile ownership that you quote also have a landline at home, not least
> those that are on VM who have a landline because the contract is cheaper
> than broadband alone.
>

I don't remember responding to your post

[Tweed]

Bob Latham <b...@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <thrpbv$6c4n$1...@dont-email.me>,

> Tweed <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You can easily migrate your landline number to Sipgate. They charge
>> a one off £30 or so. After that the only thing you pay is a very
>> small per second charge for outgoing calls.
>

> Please forgive my ignorance on this topic.
>
> So I get my BT number transferred to Sipgate, then what?
>
> I have 4 hard wired telephones in our house and not portable phones.
> How would I go about getting that to work?
>
> I have broadband from Virgin with the VM router in modem only mode
> and an Asus AC68U router.
>
> I've hung on to the BT line which is a financial strain because
> Virgin keep putting the price up and I always expected to be forced
> to move to something cheaper and would need the BT line.
>
> Bob.
>
>

You can buy a thing called an ATA, an Analogue Telephone Adapter. Ethernet
port to connect to your router and a telephone port. You can back feed that
into your phone extension wiring after having isolated that from the BT
line.

[Mark Carver]

On 08/10/2022 13:10, Tweed wrote:
>
> You can easily migrate your landline number to Sipgate. They charge a one
> off £30 or so. After that the only thing you pay is a very small per second
> charge for outgoing calls. It’s a very thorough outfit run by a well
> organised German company.

Unfortunately Sipgate have now closed their Basic service to new customers.

[Mark Carver]

On 08/10/2022 16:14, Woody wrote:
>
> I would think Dave that the high percentage of emergency calls
> originating from mobiles are related to traffic incidents.

I've made 999 calls from my mobile, despite being in the same room as a
landline. It allows far more flexility for any callbacks that might be
required

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 12:58:51 +0100, David Wade <g4...@dave.invalid>
wrote:

>For me the biggest downside to moving to voip service is loss of number.

I kept my landline number when migrating to Zen FTTC VOIP. I just
plugged my existing phone into the Fritzbox instead of the NTE5
junction box and it works exactly as it did before.

Rod.

[Theo]

Other companies like Andrews and Arnold or Voipfone operate a similar
service. You have to pay a small £1-2 monthly number rental and then calls
are cheap (1.5p/min landlines, 4p/min mobiles for A&A, free to other A&A
customers).

Theo

[Woody]

Pity Sipgate have done that - must be running out of numbers! They were
cheap as well; no system charges, just calls at slightly under 1p/min
for UK calls and about 1.9p/min for calls to Europe and some other
places. Mobiles were/are a bit pricer with a call connection charge, but
Sipgate to Sipgate calls were always free. I still use them.

What was voip.co.uk, now called First Europe I think, still do it on
call charges alone albeit a tiny tad more expensive.

[Graham J]

Tweed wrote:

[snip]

>>
>
> No idea. I was just disputing the implication that mobile phone usage was
> an inside the M25 thing. If the figures are to be believed 87% of the adult
> population use a smartphone every day. That’s quite a statistic. Of the 13%
> who don’t I wonder how many can’t use any sort of phone? Eg folk in nursing
> homes, prisoners (well not supposed to have freely available access!) etc.
>

Or the people for whom there is no mobile signal! Very commpn problem
in rural areas.




--
Graham J

[Tweed]

It would be interesting to actually know how many people still have no
access to making a phone call on their mobile phone. Bearing in mind that
WiFi calling is a thing. Saying your mobile provider or your phone doesn’t
support WiFi calling doesn’t count - that’s just opting out.

[Graham J]

Tweed wrote:

[snip]


>> Or the people for whom there is no mobile signal! Very common problem

>> in rural areas.
>>
> It would be interesting to actually know how many people still have no
> access to making a phone call on their mobile phone. Bearing in mind that
> WiFi calling is a thing. Saying your mobile provider or your phone doesn’t
> support WiFi calling doesn’t count - that’s just opting out.

Numerically it isn't going to be very many, but geographically it could
be a large area.

Here - not far from Thetford near the main A11 trunk route from London
to Norwich - mobile signals are quite patchy. A truck driver stranded
in our village had to stand on the roof of his cab to call the service
people to come and repair his vehicle.

The service varies from one provider to another: nothing works inside
the house but Vodafone is useable outdoors, though EE generally not.
This problem could be resolved by allowing roaming from one network to
another. Does anybody know why this is apparently not possible?

WiFi calling is all very well, but very often FTTC is unheard of, and
ADSL is no faster than dial-up used to be. Hopefully this will change
as third party FTTP providers get more interest in their fibre only
internet connection and VoIP.

Further, the sound quality of a mobile is often so poor that using it
for a conversation is difficult. It is OK for emergencies. It's not
noise, its more strange distortions, echoes, and gaps in the sound.
Examples can be heard daily when news broadcasters interview people via
mobile phone. By contrast the audio quality of a landline is very good.




--
Graham J

[Tweed]

Don’t confuse mobile phone based interviews with Teams/WhatsApp etc audio.
It’s usually the latter that go bad. These days mobiles often switch to
codecs with better audio quality than landlines.

[Theo]

Tweed <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It would be interesting to actually know how many people still have no
> access to making a phone call on their mobile phone. Bearing in mind that
> WiFi calling is a thing. Saying your mobile provider or your phone doesn’t
> support WiFi calling doesn’t count - that’s just opting out.

Providers who don't implement wifi calling for many of their customers are a
big problem. It's the exception not the rule on PAYG, for example.

Something Ofcom could relatively trivially do is force mobile operators to
implement wifi calling for all customers, including PAYG. That would
eliminate complaints from a big chunk of customers who have no phone signal
at home, but do have broadband. A lot of the time people need mobiles to
receive texts from their bank/etc - while they have to specifically use
their phone for that, it doesn't matter how the texts got there.

It would also need implementation of wifi calling on featurephones like
Nokias and Doros that many elderly people use.

Though it would complicate matters for the 'your landline's switching to
digital voice, but in a power cut you can call emergency services on your
mobile' argument.

Theo

[Tweed]

WiFi calling is a mess. According to the appropriate websites:
EE and Vodafone offer it on contract and PAYG. O2 doesn’t support it on
PAYG. GiffGaff and Tesco mobile don’t support it at all. Sky mobile
support it but don’t offer a PAYG service at all. Plusnet, part of BT,
don’t offer it at all either. (Probably be defunct soon anyway)

[Graham J]

Tweed wrote:

[snip]

>
> WiFi calling is a mess. According to the appropriate websites:
> EE and Vodafone offer it on contract and PAYG. O2 doesn’t support it on
> PAYG. GiffGaff and Tesco mobile don’t support it at all. Sky mobile
> support it but don’t offer a PAYG service at all. Plusnet, part of BT,
> don’t offer it at all either. (Probably be defunct soon anyway)

I have a Vodafone contract, which I upgraded (actually at a cheaper
price) to allow WiFi calling. But it doesn't work and ultimately
Vodafone admitted that it isn't supported in my phone - a Sony Xperia X
Model F5121 running Android version 6.0.1.

So enforcing WiFi calling retrospectively may be difficult. But I can't
see why it would be impossible given that firmware upgrades are "a thing".


--
Graham J

[Tweed]

Unfortunately you have a 6 year old phone. I doubt there’s much interest
(or profit) in providing upgraded firmware.

[David Wade]

I don't buy the calls, I buy the data, so with a £10 goody bag from
GiffGaff I get unlimited calls to mobiles and land lines plus 12gb of
data. I could save £2/month but would only get 3gb of data which I
sometimes exceed.

.. so yes as long as you don't use data on your phone, its fine, but I
do use data when out and about, and the calls come free with that...

Dave

[Graham J]

Tweed wrote:

[snip]

>> So enforcing WiFi calling retrospectively may be difficult. But I can't
>> see why it would be impossible given that firmware upgrades are "a thing".
>>
>>
>
> Unfortunately you have a 6 year old phone. I doubt there’s much interest
> (or profit) in providing upgraded firmware.

... and other than the lack of WiFi calling it works fine!

Clearly the profit is only in selling new phones. So really they are no
more than a form of costume jewellery.


--
Graham J

[David Wade]

On 08/10/2022 16:14, Woody wrote:

You missed one point. At that instant BT cease your landline, and
despite all the fuss, most providers still won't offer FTTC without one
and your broadband stops working. There does not seem to be a way to
seamlessly move to a non-BT voip service whilst retaining your landline.

Even if you switch to a broadband with no phone you don't appear to
save. ZEN with no landline is exactly the same price I pay Plusnet with
a land line...

Dave

[Chris Green]

Ah, yes. I use very little data on my phone as I regard it as far too
insecure.

--
Chris Green
·

[Tim+]

Only if you’re one of those weird people who never uses the smart features.
A modern mobile phone is so much more than just a piece of jewellery.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

[Bob Eager]

On Sun, 09 Oct 2022 16:38:45 +0100, David Wade wrote:

> You missed one point. At that instant BT cease your landline, and
> despite all the fuss, most providers still won't offer FTTC without one
> and your broadband stops working. There does not seem to be a way to
> seamlessly move to a non-BT voip service whilst retaining your landline.

I am with AAISP. My 'bare copper' line (no calls) was £10 a month plus
VAT. Cheaper than having the BT line. This was after I'd had FTTC a
while. I had VoIP but didn't bother porting the number from the old line
(I could have) as I got a block of ten from AAISP.

I opted to have enhanced care (mapping onto BT TotalCare) which was an
extra tenner a month (I have found that very useful).

I recently moved to FTTP. An extra £20 a month, but cancelled the copper
and enhanced care! So I went from 16/2.5 Mb/s to 300/50 Mb/s with zero
extra cost and no service interruption.

[Brian Gregory]

On 08/10/2022 08:43, Martin Brown wrote:
> I'm not sure that a fixed IP address is all that important these days

Myself. I don't particularly care either way about having a static IPv4
IP. However I do like to run dual stack and having a block of IPv6 that
might move around is a total complete and utter disaster for anyone that
does anything other than just use two or three devices connected only by
Wi-Fi.

--
Brian Gregory (in England).

[Mark Carver]

Yes. Though I've seen it suggested that A&A only allow payment by direct
debit, and have no cap on calls, so if your account is hacked (how
common or likely is that with VoIP ?) the sky's the limit ?

All that said, you can't expect to 'freeload' off such deals ad
infinitum, they make no business sense for the operators (as Sipgate
have probably concluded)

I'm that desperate to keep a 'landline connection' alive for more than
about a quid/mth, so I'll be out.....

[Mark Carver]

It's public wifi that's insecure on a mobile, a 3,4, or 5G cellular data
connection is far more secure, and probably more secure than your
domestic landline connection

[Chris Green]

Mark Carver <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 09/10/2022 17:33, Chris Green wrote:
> > David Wade <g4...@dave.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 08/10/2022 14:00, Chris Green wrote:
> >>> David Wade <g4...@dave.invalid> wrote:
> >>> [snip]
> >>>

> >> I don't buy the calls, I buy the data, so with a £10 goody bag from
> >> GiffGaff I get unlimited calls to mobiles and land lines plus 12gb of
> >> data. I could save £2/month but would only get 3gb of data which I
> >> sometimes exceed.
> >>
> >> .. so yes as long as you don't use data on your phone, its fine, but I
> >> do use data when out and about, and the calls come free with that...
> >>
> > Ah, yes. I use very little data on my phone as I regard it as far too
> > insecure.
> >
> It's public wifi that's insecure on a mobile, a 3,4, or 5G cellular data
> connection is far more secure, and probably more secure than your
> domestic landline connection

It's not the security of the connection I'm talking about, it's the
phone itself if/when lost or stolen.

--
Chris Green
·

[Andy Burns]

Bob Eager wrote:

> I'd had FTTC a while [...] I recently moved to FTTP [...] So I went from

> 16/2.5 Mb/s to 300/50 Mb/s

That's the slowest FTTC I've heard of, how far were you from the cabinet?

[Mark Carver]

A friend of mine in Woking is on FTTC of 16/3 Mb/s. He's only about 700
metres from the cabinet, but has 'ally' twisted pair

[Graham J]

I get about that, at about 1.1km from the cabinet.


--
Graham J

[Bob Eager]

I was told 1.4km, although the distance by road is a bit over 1km. We are
the only house in the road on that cabinet.

Explanation: our house was the first in the road, summer home of a rich
man from London (1903). When the telephone was installed our cabinet was
the nearest. Then they put another cab in, 200 metres away from us.
Everyone else went on that. Ours is probably the oldest bit of wet
string, too.

Yes, I did try to get it moved. First attempt, they said I had to get
wayleave from next door (a rented house) as the line would overfly their
garden (the pole is behind the house). I wrote to the landlord (at his
compny, he's a builder) and got no reply. Several months later I wrote to
him at his private address, and immediately got a nice letter granting
permission (I guess his office junked my letter). Unfortunately the BT
guy who turned up refused to do it anyway.

So glad to get fibre!

[Jeff Layman]

On 10/10/2022 10:07, Andy Burns wrote:
>

I get 30Mb down. I'm about 500 metres from the cabinet, with the final
60 metres or so being overhead line. There's no FTTP scheduled here, but
it doesn't matter as 30Mb is fine for my needs.

--

Jeff

[Woody]

The air interface is encrypted but the data on the feed back to the
switch is not (it is all the way through on Airwave.)

[Abandoned_Trolley]

On 10/10/2022 10:56, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <jqi5um...@mid.individual.net>,

> Mark Carver <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> A friend of mine in Woking is on FTTC of 16/3 Mb/s. He's only about
>> 700 metres from the cabinet, but has 'ally' twisted pair
>

> Does "ally" have any baring on speed? I'm surprised if it does.
>
> I know it's brittle nature gives rise to greater unreliability but
> slower?
>
> Bob.
>



Slightly higher resistance ? - but I was under the impression that
"ally" drop wire was of a heavier gauge than copper to compensate for it


--
random signature text inserted here

[Tweed]

Skin depth. Doesn’t make that much difference if you make the wires
thicker. VDSL goes up to around 17 MHz where the current only flows in the
outside of the conductor. Lower frequency carriers will take advantage of
the whole of the conductor. So you tend to lose the higher frequencies
first and thus have a lower link speed. Aluminium has about 1.5 time more
resistance than copper per unit length.

[Martin Brown]

On 08/10/2022 16:48, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <thrpbv$6c4n$1...@dont-email.me>,

> Tweed <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You can easily migrate your landline number to Sipgate. They charge
>> a one off £30 or so. After that the only thing you pay is a very
>> small per second charge for outgoing calls.
>

> Please forgive my ignorance on this topic.
>
> So I get my BT number transferred to Sipgate, then what?

I don't know about doing it with a proper VOIP provider. I did it the
easy way by moving back to BT for my full fibre service precisely to
preserve my BT number in the migration. Any other ISP and the old BT
landline number would be toast (or that's what they told me).

EE support put me through directly to BT sales (they are now part of the
same organisation). At that time Plusnet didn't offer full fibre.
>
> I have 4 hard wired telephones in our house and not portable phones.
> How would I go about getting that to work?

The way I made my phone network operate after it went onto the digital
VOIP offering (BT's own bespoke one rather than Sipgate). I unplugged
the phones from the old BT master socket in the loft (where they had
"conveniently" installed it) and added a T in my office to plug it all
into the routers POTS port and also to my office phone. Job done.
>
> I have broadband from Virgin with the VM router in modem only mode
> and an Asus AC68U router.

You could almost certainly get a Virgin phone line but you might have to
lose your BT phone number in the process. I think it is much easier if
you already have a working internet connection that is not tied to your
BT landline number/circuit. ADSL stops working if you port your number.

> I've hung on to the BT line which is a financial strain because
> Virgin keep putting the price up and I always expected to be forced
> to move to something cheaper and would need the BT line.

No might be a good time to look at BT's fibre offerings.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Martin Brown]

On 09/10/2022 17:33, Chris Green wrote:
> David Wade <g4...@dave.invalid> wrote:
>> On 08/10/2022 14:00, Chris Green wrote:
>>> David Wade <g4...@dave.invalid> wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> I have a landline, and can make calls on it, but generally don't because
>>>> it would cost. Like many I get unlimited calls included in my mobile
>>>> contract, so no way am I paying twice, but I would use it for a 999 call
>>>> and I imagine others would.
>>>>
>>>> My landlines is expensive. I would love to migrate my number to VOIP but
>>>> it looks like BT is making this hard, presumably because they nned to
>>>> buy infrastructure to implement it.
>>>>
>>> I really find this strange to understand.
>>>
>>> We get unlimited calls calls to UK landlines (including 0845 and
>>> 0870), plus 2000 minutes of calls to mobiles for £10.28 a month from
>>> Plusnet with our broadband from them.
>>>
>>> I could get unlimited calls with my mobile but the landline is much more
>>> reliable and easy to use where we live. The mobile cost would be comparable
>>> to the above landline cost anyway.
>>>
>>> So for me it makes more sense (and is just as cheap) to have a PAYGO
>>> mobile and the above deal from PlusNet.
>>>
>>> I could thus say "I have a mobile, and can make calls on it, but
>>> generally don't because it would cost". :-)

I generally make calls on my mobile and never exceed its minutes
allowance but I have it mainly for mobile data when out and about.

My landline is strictly for receiving incoming calls from others.
No point in paying extra for "free" calls on both networks!

>> I don't buy the calls, I buy the data, so with a £10 goody bag from
>> GiffGaff I get unlimited calls to mobiles and land lines plus 12gb of
>> data. I could save £2/month but would only get 3gb of data which I
>> sometimes exceed.
>>
>> .. so yes as long as you don't use data on your phone, its fine, but I
>> do use data when out and about, and the calls come free with that...
>>
> Ah, yes. I use very little data on my phone as I regard it as far too
> insecure.

4G & 5G data exchange protocols are pretty secure (unless you are up
against GCHQ, NSA or the like - and then all bets are off).

It is using insecure free Wifi hotspots that can get you into trouble or
charging your phone from a USB port using a cable that allows data transfer.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Martin Brown]

On 08/10/2022 16:14, Woody wrote:
> On Sat 08/10/2022 12:58, David Wade wrote:
>> On 08/10/2022 12:38, Tweed wrote:
>>> Abandoned_Trolley <fr...@fred-smith.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://dontdisappoint.me.uk/resources/electronics/smartphone-usage-statistics-uk/
>>>>>
>>>>> 92% of UK adults own a smartphone in 2022.
>>>>> 95% of smartphone owners use their mobile every day.
>>>>> Brits spent an average of 3 hours and 23 minutes a day on their
>>>>> phones.
>>>>> 50% of 10-year-olds in the UK owned a smartphone in 2019.
>>>>> Android operating system holds 45.04% of the mobile market share in
>>>>> the UK.
>>>>> Retail UK mobile phone revenue stood at £3.2 billion in Q2 2020.
>>>>> In 2022, there were 63.2 million mobile internet users in the UK. `
>>>>> 48% of UK citizens use their phone to make voice calls more than
>>>>> once a
>>>>> day.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any landline usage statistics to compare it with ?
>>>>
>>>> ... its not a zero sum game
>>>>
>>
>> If 999 call usage is an indicator 74% of calls came from mobiles 26%
>> from landlines. I expect this is a fair indicator of general usage.
>>

>> I have a landline, and can make calls on it, but generally don't
>> because it would cost. Like many I get unlimited calls included in my
>> mobile contract, so no way am I paying twice, but I would use it for a
>> 999 call and I imagine others would.
>>
>> My landlines is expensive. I would love to migrate my number to VOIP
>> but it looks like BT is making this hard, presumably because they nned
>> to buy infrastructure to implement it.
>>

>> For me the biggest downside to moving to voip service is loss of number.

That is precisely why I moved to full fibre with BT. They take care of
porting the number and are prepared to offer landline number retention
with their own proprietary VOIP service. It works and was the clear path
of least resistance for me.

You can do it another way by having both a landline and a full fibre
line overlap for a month or so. Then manually move the old xDSL landline
number over to VOIP (so killing the xDSL service stone dead) and then
you get a generic more portable VOIP offering.

>
> I would think Dave that the high percentage of emergency calls
> originating from mobiles are related to traffic incidents.

Perhaps but many people now have opted for landline with all calls fully
charged or free only after 6pm and at weekends and however many minutes
of free UK talk time on their mobile (increasingly an infinite number of
them). I typically never use my 200 minute talk time allocation unless I
am talking someone through doing something very complicated over the phone.

> I am a little bit puzzled about your comments re Voip. Are you saying
> that you have BT (broadband) and would like to migrate your BT phone to
> Voip operation? I would guess that it is because your serving exchange
> cannot provide the service.

> In terms of porting your line number to a Voip service provider (VSP)
> all you need to do is open an account with a VSP (such as Sipgate or
> Voipcheap) and set up a service. You will need an Analogue Telephone
> Adapter such as a PAP2T to convert your line phone to Voip, or put a
> Voip app such as Zoiper or Mizudroid on your mobile. Then tell your VSP
> that you want them to take over your landline number and, in theory at
> least, they should do the rest.
> But I could be wrong of course!

I think the problem for anyone not on a fibre service is that the xDSL
line requires a phone number to function. So if you port the number to
VOIP then your internet connection vanishes.

The OP has a Virgin internet connection (and I am pretty sure they do
offer an intergal phone line service if you want one). No idea if they
can port an existing BT nubmer to it but worth asking.

Only problem is that if the power fails your landline fails too.
Another reason to use the mobile phone for contacting the emergency
services and reporting power outages - for most people now their DECT
house phones won't work at all without mains power.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Mark Carver]

On 11/10/2022 09:06, Martin Brown wrote:
>
> I think the problem for anyone not on a fibre service is that the xDSL
> line requires a phone number to function. So if you port the number to
> VOIP then your internet connection vanishes.

It's because Openreach's system to provision a *dsl broadband service to
an ISP (including BT Retail) is based upon your physical phone line
using your phone number as the reference.

It's ludicrous, it should be the UPRN. Ofcom should have forced a change
years ago. It's a bloody mess now.

[Chris Green]

Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
> >> I don't buy the calls, I buy the data, so with a £10 goody bag from
> >> GiffGaff I get unlimited calls to mobiles and land lines plus 12gb of
> >> data. I could save £2/month but would only get 3gb of data which I
> >> sometimes exceed.
> >>
> >> .. so yes as long as you don't use data on your phone, its fine, but I
> >> do use data when out and about, and the calls come free with that...
> >>
> > Ah, yes. I use very little data on my phone as I regard it as far too
> > insecure.
>
> 4G & 5G data exchange protocols are pretty secure (unless you are up
> against GCHQ, NSA or the like - and then all bets are off).
>
> It is using insecure free Wifi hotspots that can get you into trouble or
> charging your phone from a USB port using a cable that allows data transfer.
>

As I said in this thread elsewhere it's not the security of the
connection I'm worried about it's the [lack of] security of the phone
itself.

2FA on a mobile is a joke as both factors are on the phone and it's
all done automagically. If someone gets hold of your phone that's it,
full access to everything. Plus, if you lose your phone, you have
instant no access to anything.

--
Chris Green
·

[Ken]

Really? Neither my facial image or my fingerprint is on my phone. And
that's just one factor. There's still the other, a password for
example.

[Tweed]

And you can run 2FA apps, eg Microsoft Authenticator, on more than one
device, so if you lose access to one of them you aren’t in trouble.

[Theo]

With SOGEA and Digital Voice there's no number on the line, so the number
isn't being used as a line key any more (although it may be the key to your
account with your ISP). The problem with using the UPRN alone is that some
properties have multiple lines and you need a way to indicate 'this line,
not that line'. It's especially an issue for shared premises where there
may not be separate addresses (eg HMO rooms where there is one line per
room but they aren't registered as flats with distinct addresses).

It is already troublesome to order a second line, because the databases
always assume they're dealing with the line that already exists rather than
a not-yet-extant new one. In theory the Access Line ID is the identifier
that refers to a physical bit of wiring, but it's very difficult to find out
what yours is and most checkers don't accept them.

I agree, though, that OR should have a port-out-without-ceasing procedure.
But then landline porting has always been a dog's dinner.

Theo

[Chris Green]

I think you're unusual, everyone I have met using their phone for bank
transactions and such just needs the phone and nothing else.

--
Chris Green
·

[Tweed]

How do they log into the phone in the first place?

[Martin Brown]

They have to know your PIN or have your face or fingerprint too.

I wouldn't trust any banking app on my phone. Only one machine that Id
do banking on which is not portable and has higher security.

Losing a mobile phone would be somewhat traumatic for many but if you
have a cloud backup it can still be recovered.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Martin Brown]

On 10/10/2022 10:56, Bob Latham wrote:
> In article <jqi5um...@mid.individual.net>,
> Mark Carver <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>

>> A friend of mine in Woking is on FTTC of 16/3 Mb/s. He's only about
>> 700 metres from the cabinet, but has 'ally' twisted pair
>

> Does "ally" have any baring on speed? I'm surprised if it does.

Yes. Aluminium has a wonderful transparent oxide layer on the metal
which acts as a semiconductor partially rectifying the xDSL signal. The
village neighbouring me has a mix. Some of them don't get 1Mbps.

A joint of two dissimilar metals make it even worse. Aluminium is much
more reactive than most people realise and turns into white dust if
conditions are right. That stuff really doesn't like RF signals.

>
> I know it's brittle nature gives rise to greater unreliability but
> slower?

Massively so - especially if it gets corroded by slightly alkaline
groundwater getting into the works as well.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Chris Green]

Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
> On 11/10/2022 09:06, Chris Green wrote:
> > Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> I don't buy the calls, I buy the data, so with a £10 goody bag from
> >>>> GiffGaff I get unlimited calls to mobiles and land lines plus 12gb of
> >>>> data. I could save £2/month but would only get 3gb of data which I
> >>>> sometimes exceed.
> >>>>
> >>>> .. so yes as long as you don't use data on your phone, its fine, but I
> >>>> do use data when out and about, and the calls come free with that...
> >>>>
> >>> Ah, yes. I use very little data on my phone as I regard it as far too
> >>> insecure.
> >>
> >> 4G & 5G data exchange protocols are pretty secure (unless you are up
> >> against GCHQ, NSA or the like - and then all bets are off).
> >>
> >> It is using insecure free Wifi hotspots that can get you into trouble or
> >> charging your phone from a USB port using a cable that allows data transfer.
> >>
> > As I said in this thread elsewhere it's not the security of the
> > connection I'm worried about it's the [lack of] security of the phone
> > itself.
> >
> > 2FA on a mobile is a joke as both factors are on the phone and it's
> > all done automagically. If someone gets hold of your phone that's it,
> > full access to everything. Plus, if you lose your phone, you have
> > instant no access to anything.
>
> They have to know your PIN or have your face or fingerprint too.
>

Only if restarting/reopening an app, half the users I see just have
everything open all the time. And shoulder surfing a PIN is hardly
difficult.

> I wouldn't trust any banking app on my phone. Only one machine that Id
> do banking on which is not portable and has higher security.
>

Exactly my feeling about using a phone for banking and such.

> Losing a mobile phone would be somewhat traumatic for many but if you
> have a cloud backup it can still be recovered.
>

How many people have any sort of backup, let alone a cloud backup.

--
Chris Green
·

[Chris Green]

They never log out! That's most users anyway.

--
Chris Green
·

[Woody]

My Panasonic works with no mains - it has backup batteries!

[Mark Carver]

On 11/10/2022 14:05, Chris Green wrote:
>
>>> I think you're unusual, everyone I have met using their phone for bank
>>> transactions and such just needs the phone and nothing else.
>>>
>> How do they log into the phone in the first place?
>>
> They never log out! That's most users anyway.
>

That's bollocks, banking apps on phones log you out after 30 to 60
seconds of no activity.

[Martin Brown]

I think he actually means that some people have entirely disabled the
built in security so that their phone is quite literally an open book.

This is as opposed to the flash up of OTP notifications from some banks
being visible even on a locked phone due to a too short preamble.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Mark Carver]

On 11/10/2022 16:58, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 11/10/2022 16:27, Mark Carver wrote:
>> On 11/10/2022 14:05, Chris Green wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I think you're unusual, everyone I have met using their phone for
>>>>> bank
>>>>> transactions and such just needs the phone and nothing else.
>>>>>
>>>> How do they log into the phone in the first place?
>>>>
>>> They never log out!  That's most users anyway.
>>>
>> That's bollocks, banking apps on phones log you out after 30 to 60
>> seconds of no activity.
>
> I think he actually means that some people have entirely disabled the
> built in security so that their phone is quite literally an open book.

They may well have done, but I don't think that prevents the banking
apps shutting themselves down if you cease paying attention for a few
seconds ?
They have to, the public really are a bunch of thickos (generally)

[Tim+]

Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

> On 11/10/2022 16:27, Mark Carver wrote:
>> On 11/10/2022 14:05, Chris Green wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I think you're unusual, everyone I have met using their phone for bank
>>>>> transactions and such just needs the phone and nothing else.
>>>>>
>>>> How do they log into the phone in the first place?
>>>>
>>> They never log out!  That's most users anyway.
>>>
>> That's bollocks, banking apps on phones log you out after 30 to 60
>> seconds of no activity.
>
> I think he actually means that some people have entirely disabled the
> built in security so that their phone is quite literally an open book.

In my experience with banking apps you can’t prevent the site logging you
out after an inactive period.

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

[David Wade]

All the banking apps I have, which are on android, require you to log in
again to the app. Mine are set to fingerprint, so you can't shoulder
surf a pin or pattern

>
>> I wouldn't trust any banking app on my phone. Only one machine that Id
>> do banking on which is not portable and has higher security.
>>
> Exactly my feeling about using a phone for banking and such.
>

Does it really have higher security? All the PC platforms, such as IOS,
Linux and windows have exploitable security vulnerabilities...

>
>> Losing a mobile phone would be somewhat traumatic for many but if you
>> have a cloud backup it can still be recovered.
>>
> How many people have any sort of backup, let alone a cloud backup.
>

Why does any one NOT have a cloud backup of their phone. My when my Sony
Xperia died moving to a new Samsung was pretty seamless. There is enough
space in a free Google or iCloud account for one backup. I am just
astounded at people who lose piccys when they lose their phone. If they
are that important back them up...

Dave

[Martin Brown]

On 11/10/2022 17:04, Mark Carver wrote:
> On 11/10/2022 16:58, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 11/10/2022 16:27, Mark Carver wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2022 14:05, Chris Green wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I think you're unusual, everyone I have met using their phone for
>>>>>> bank
>>>>>> transactions and such just needs the phone and nothing else.
>>>>>>
>>>>> How do they log into the phone in the first place?
>>>>>
>>>> They never log out!  That's most users anyway.
>>>>
>>> That's bollocks, banking apps on phones log you out after 30 to 60
>>> seconds of no activity.

30s is a bit short. It is too easy to spend at least that long double
checking that the data you have entered is correct. It doesn't help that
most credit and debit cards layout the numbers NNNN NNNN NNNN NNNN but
almost every damn online site lays them out NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN.

>> I think he actually means that some people have entirely disabled the
>> built in security so that their phone is quite literally an open book.
>
> They may well have done, but I don't think that prevents the banking
> apps shutting themselves down if you cease paying attention for a few
> seconds ?
> They have to, the public really are a bunch of thickos (generally)

If the apps are similar to the websites then between 5 and 15 minutes of
inactivity will end the session depending on the bank. I'd be inclined
to think about 3 mins was right on a mobile phone banking app.

I presume it requires face ID or fingerprint to execute a transaction?
(I don't use mobile phone banking apps myself)

I only use them on my most secure fixed computer. In extremis I could go
to their website in a browser on my mobile phone but I refuse to have an
app on my phone stupid enough to contain my bank cards PIN!


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Chris Green]

Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

> On 11/10/2022 17:04, Mark Carver wrote:
> > On 11/10/2022 16:58, Martin Brown wrote:
> >> On 11/10/2022 16:27, Mark Carver wrote:
> >>> On 11/10/2022 14:05, Chris Green wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> I think you're unusual, everyone I have met using their phone for
> >>>>>> bank
> >>>>>> transactions and such just needs the phone and nothing else.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> How do they log into the phone in the first place?
> >>>>>
> >>>> They never log out!  That's most users anyway.
> >>>>
> >>> That's bollocks, banking apps on phones log you out after 30 to 60
> >>> seconds of no activity.
>
> 30s is a bit short. It is too easy to spend at least that long double
> checking that the data you have entered is correct. It doesn't help that
> most credit and debit cards layout the numbers NNNN NNNN NNNN NNNN but
> almost every damn online site lays them out NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN.
>

Same with bank sort codes, you need to enter xx-yy-zz and you get
xxyyzz, or vice versa.

--
Chris Green
·

[Mark Carver]

On 12/10/2022 14:01, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 11/10/2022 17:04, Mark Carver wrote:
>> On 11/10/2022 16:58, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2022 16:27, Mark Carver wrote:
>>>> On 11/10/2022 14:05, Chris Green wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you're unusual, everyone I have met using their phone
>>>>>>> for bank
>>>>>>> transactions and such just needs the phone and nothing else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do they log into the phone in the first place?
>>>>>>
>>>>> They never log out!  That's most users anyway.
>>>>>
>>>> That's bollocks, banking apps on phones log you out after 30 to 60
>>>> seconds of no activity.
>
> 30s is a bit short. It is too easy to spend at least that long double
> checking that the data you have entered is correct. It doesn't help
> that most credit and debit cards layout the numbers NNNN NNNN NNNN
> NNNN but almost every damn online site lays them out NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN.

When do you ever enter a 16 digit credit card number into a home banking
site ?

In any case, all the time you're gently scrolling the page on the
screen, it won't time out

[Martin Brown]

When you are setting up a new one for payment.

It is more a comment on the bad design of *ALL* ecommerce sites.
It isn't rocket science to accept embedded spaces!

> In any case, all the time you're gently scrolling the page on the
> screen, it won't time out

That is my other pet hate.
Entry boxes far too narrow for the text that you are supposed to put
into them so that you have to scroll along sideways to check it.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown