From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 10:39:28 +1300, Your Name wrote:

The reality is that for most people's needs 3G or earlier is
prefectly fine ...

But radio spectrum is a finite resource. And quite an expensive one, too.

That 3G communication requires radio bands that could be more efficiently redeployed for 4G or 5G.

Sure, you want to continue using a 3G device. Can you afford to pay for
the spectrum needed to satisfy your use?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

In comp.misc Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 10:39:28 +1300, Your Name wrote:

The reality is that for most people's needs 3G or earlier is
prefectly fine ...

But radio spectrum is a finite resource. And quite an expensive one, too.

That 3G communication requires radio bands that could be more efficiently redeployed for 4G or 5G.

Less effectively than 3G, so far as coverage range goes. The way
they've done it in Australia anyway.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2025-12-14 23:41:25 +0000, Lawrence D´Oliveiro said:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 10:39:28 +1300, Your Name wrote:

The reality is that for most people's needs 3G or earlier is
prefectly fine ...

But radio spectrum is a finite resource. And quite an expensive one, too.

That 3G communication requires radio bands that could be more efficiently redeployed for 4G or 5G.

Sure, you want to continue using a 3G device. Can you afford to pay for
the spectrum needed to satisfy your use?

Personally, I don't have any cellular device at all, never have had, so couldn't really care less. :-)

In the last 10 years or so there has been a steadily increasing push by
tech companies with new-fangled gimmickry that nobody asked, and very
few people want or need. It's almost entirely simply so that the tech companies can make more money via people having to constantly update
their devices. :-\

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2025-12-14 23:41:25 +0000, Lawrence D´Oliveiro said:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 10:39:28 +1300, Your Name wrote:

The reality is that for most people's needs 3G or earlier is
prefectly fine ...

But radio spectrum is a finite resource. And quite an expensive one, too.

That 3G communication requires radio bands that could be more efficiently redeployed for 4G or 5G.

They use different bands, although there is some crossover at the lower
bands. It depends a little on where you are as to the exact frequency
bands the local governments allow for usage.

Sure, you want to continue using a 3G device. Can you afford to pay for
the spectrum needed to satisfy your use?

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2025-12-15 00:51:37 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev said:

In comp.misc Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 10:39:28 +1300, Your Name wrote:

The reality is that for most people's needs 3G or earlier is
prefectly fine ...

But radio spectrum is a finite resource. And quite an expensive one, too.

That 3G communication requires radio bands that could be more efficiently
redeployed for 4G or 5G.

Less effectively than 3G, so far as coverage range goes. The way
they've done it in Australia anyway.

4G and especially 5G are specifially designed that way by using higher frequencies to enable (supposed) faster speeds. That of course means
the telecoms companies need more towers, etc. to cover the same area
... and more money for the tech companies.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

In comp.misc Your Name <YourName@yourisp.com> wrote:

On 2025-12-15 00:51:37 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev said:

In comp.misc Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 10:39:28 +1300, Your Name wrote:

The reality is that for most people's needs 3G or earlier is
prefectly fine ...

But radio spectrum is a finite resource. And quite an expensive one, too. >>>
That 3G communication requires radio bands that could be more efficiently >>> redeployed for 4G or 5G.

Less effectively than 3G, so far as coverage range goes. The way
they've done it in Australia anyway.

4G and especially 5G are specifially designed that way by using higher frequencies to enable (supposed) faster speeds. That of course means
the telecoms companies need more towers, etc. to cover the same area
... and more money for the tech companies.

In Aus Telstra are using the 700MHz band for 4G, so lower
frequencies to their 800MHz 3G band before. But even their new
phones that support that band worked better on 3G before it was
switched off (once you disabled 4G in the settings so they
wouldn't keep switching to 4G then lose it again a moment later).
No new towers either, just back to going outside and finding a
good spot to make a call, like it was before more towers were
built in the 2G/3G days.

Like I say, 4G is evidently a _less_ effective use of the spectrum.
I don't know about 5G, it's on lower frequencies too but I haven't
heard any suggestion that it has better coverage than 4G. Also
using 5G for voice calls is a new feature that's only on some
phones/networks.

I use my landline instead (still an analogue line), but they're in
no hurry to fix that when it breaks these days because "everyone"
uses mobiles. Huff.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2025-12-15 03:40:13 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev said:

In comp.misc Your Name <YourName@yourisp.com> wrote:

On 2025-12-15 00:51:37 +0000, Computer Nerd Kev said:

In comp.misc Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 10:39:28 +1300, Your Name wrote:

The reality is that for most people's needs 3G or earlier is
prefectly fine ...

But radio spectrum is a finite resource. And quite an expensive one, too. >>>>
That 3G communication requires radio bands that could be more efficiently >>>> redeployed for 4G or 5G.

Less effectively than 3G, so far as coverage range goes. The way
they've done it in Australia anyway.

4G and especially 5G are specifially designed that way by using higher
frequencies to enable (supposed) faster speeds. That of course means
the telecoms companies need more towers, etc. to cover the same area
... and more money for the tech companies.

In Aus Telstra are using the 700MHz band for 4G, so lower
frequencies to their 800MHz 3G band before. But even their new
phones that support that band worked better on 3G before it was
switched off (once you disabled 4G in the settings so they
wouldn't keep switching to 4G then lose it again a moment later).
No new towers either, just back to going outside and finding a
good spot to make a call, like it was before more towers were
built in the 2G/3G days.

Like I say, 4G is evidently a _less_ effective use of the spectrum.
I don't know about 5G, it's on lower frequencies too but I haven't
heard any suggestion that it has better coverage than 4G. Also
using 5G for voice calls is a new feature that's only on some phones/networks.

I use my landline instead (still an analogue line), but they're in
no hurry to fix that when it breaks these days because "everyone"
uses mobiles. Huff.

I've never had a mobile phone and don't plan on getting one any time
soon. The other person here does have a cellphone.

We still have a landline, but because New Zealand is shutting down the
copper lines, our landline is now through the internet connection,
which is through the 4G cellular. It's a bit silly since if the
internet goes down, so does the landline, and since both are via the
cellular system a mobile phone won't be working either, so how the
[BEEP] are you supposed to ring anyone to report it and get it fixed!?
:-\



--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 18:19:46 +1300, Your Name wrote:

We still have a landline, but because New Zealand is shutting down the
copper lines, our landline is now through the internet connection, which
is through the 4G cellular.

I have my landline via fibre, but not through my Internet provider. My Internet access is done through another provider (also via the same
fibre).

It's a bit silly since if the internet goes down, so does the
landline ...

What I worry about is inability to make emergency calls if/when the power
goes out.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 15:17:33 +1300, Your Name wrote:

4G is backwards compatible with 3G and some 2G

Somehow I doubt that. 3G kept voice and data separate, whereas in 4G and beyond, everything is digital data.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 15:04:46 +1300, David Goodwin wrote:

The plain old telephone system has suffered the same fate - too few
paying customers to cover the cost of upgrading and maintaining all the telephone exchanges, so its all being switched off.

I still have landline POTS service. The difference is it’s now over fibre.
It is the physical copper cabling that is being retired.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2025-12-15 07:41:53 +0000, Lawrence D´Oliveiro said:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 18:19:46 +1300, Your Name wrote:

We still have a landline, but because New Zealand is shutting down the
copper lines, our landline is now through the internet connection, which
is through the 4G cellular.

I have my landline via fibre, but not through my Internet provider. My Internet access is done through another provider (also via the same
fibre).

That's the expensive way to do it and only partially gets around the
lack of internet conenciton in the sense that if it's the providers
fault, one or the other may still be working, but if it is the fibre
fault, then neither will work.

It's cheaper to bundle the landline and internet together, rather than
pay two providers for basically the same service.

It's a bit silly since if the internet goes down, so does the landline ...

What I worry about is inability to make emergency calls if/when the power goes out.

That was still a problem in ye old days of copper lines - the phone
still had to have power via that copper wire, as did (and still do) the roadside cabinets and exchanges.

The cordless phone usually require their own power via a standard wall
socket, no matter which type of connection they use.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2025-12-15 07:47:54 +0000, Lawrence D´Oliveiro said:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 15:04:46 +1300, David Goodwin wrote:

The plain old telephone system has suffered the same fate - too few
paying customers to cover the cost of upgrading and maintaining all the
telephone exchanges, so its all being switched off.

I still have landline POTS service. The difference is it’s now over fibre. It is the physical copper cabling that is being retired.

"Retired", but usually left in place in the case of underground lines.
Maybe they'll bother to pull it out whenever they have to dig holes for
some other reason, but I wouldn't bet on it.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 10:47:21 +1300, Your Name wrote:

On 2025-12-15 07:41:53 +0000, Lawrence D´Oliveiro said:

I have my landline via fibre, but not through my Internet provider. My
Internet access is done through another provider (also via the same
fibre).

It's cheaper to bundle the landline and internet together, rather than
pay two providers for basically the same service.

It’s two different services, and I have the flexibility to do it my way.

What I worry about is inability to make emergency calls if/when the power
goes out.

That was still a problem in ye old days of copper lines - the phone
still had to have power via that copper wire, as did (and still do) the roadside cabinets and exchanges.

Which were powered independently from my home.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 10:50:01 +1300, Your Name wrote:

On 2025-12-15 07:47:54 +0000, Lawrence D´Oliveiro said:

It is the physical copper cabling that is being retired.

"Retired", but usually left in place in the case of underground lines.
Maybe they'll bother to pull it out whenever they have to dig holes for
some other reason, but I wouldn't bet on it.

It’s worth money.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2025-12-15 22:50:17 +0000, Lawrence D´Oliveiro said:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 10:47:21 +1300, Your Name wrote:

On 2025-12-15 07:41:53 +0000, Lawrence D´Oliveiro said:

I have my landline via fibre, but not through my Internet provider. My
Internet access is done through another provider (also via the same
fibre).

It's cheaper to bundle the landline and internet together, rather than
pay two providers for basically the same service.

It’s two different services, and I have the flexibility to do it my way.

It's basically the same service - a fibre modem. One is internet and
one is phone, but there's no difference as to how they work. That means
you're paying $100 (for example, $50 for each service) per month,
instead of just $60 per month for a bundled service.

We used to have a separate phone (Spark) and internet accounts
(Vodafone home cellular), until they dropped the copper service and
then we bundled the two with Spark.

What I worry about is inability to make emergency calls if/when the power >>> goes out.

That was still a problem in ye old days of copper lines - the phone
still had to have power via that copper wire, as did (and still do) the
roadside cabinets and exchanges.

Which were powered independently from my home.

It depends on where the power outage is. If the whole street is out,
then the street-side cabinet or local exchange were likely to be too
(although bigger ones sometimes had their own generators to start up).

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2025-12-15 22:51:19 +0000, Lawrence D´Oliveiro said:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 10:50:01 +1300, Your Name wrote:

On 2025-12-15 07:47:54 +0000, Lawrence D´Oliveiro said:

It is the physical copper cabling that is being retired.

"Retired", but usually left in place in the case of underground lines.
Maybe they'll bother to pull it out whenever they have to dig holes for
some other reason, but I wouldn't bet on it.

It’s worth money.

But not worth the expense of digging the holes to get at it. If they
have to dig a hole for another reason, then they might extract the
copper line at teh same time, but trying to pull it out is likely going
to break it anyway (depedning on teh method used to put it in at the
original time), so probably still not worth the effort.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

In comp.misc Your Name <YourName@yourisp.com> wrote:

On 2025-12-15 22:50:17 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro said:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2025 10:47:21 +1300, Your Name wrote:

On 2025-12-15 07:41:53 +0000, Lawrence D'Oliveiro said:

What I worry about is inability to make emergency calls if/when the power >>>> goes out.

That was still a problem in ye old days of copper lines - the phone
still had to have power via that copper wire, as did (and still do) the
roadside cabinets and exchanges.

Which were powered independently from my home.

It depends on where the power outage is. If the whole street is out,
then the street-side cabinet or local exchange were likely to be too (although bigger ones sometimes had their own generators to start up).

The little rural tin-shed exchange that mine's connected to has
battery backup. I'm on the same power line and it keeps working.
Some cordless phone units can take power from the handset battery
when there's a blackout, and I use an old corded phone anyway.

A few years ago they stuffed something up at the exchange and when
there was a power outage you'd still hear a hiss on the line and
the phone buttons made beeps, but no dial tone or response.
Annoyingly the exchange would remain broken once the power came
back on until someone came out and reset it maybe a week later.
_Eventually_ they fixed that and now the phone is back to working
during a blackout until the exchange battery dies.
--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 16/12/2025 10:50 am, Your Name wrote:

On 2025-12-15 07:47:54 +0000, Lawrence D´Oliveiro said:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 15:04:46 +1300, David Goodwin wrote:

The plain old telephone system has suffered the same fate - too few
paying customers to cover the cost of upgrading and maintaining all the
telephone exchanges, so its all being switched off.

I still have landline POTS service. The difference is it’s now over fibre. >> It is the physical copper cabling that is being retired.

"Retired", but usually left in place in the case of underground lines. Maybe they'll bother to pull
it out whenever they have to dig holes for some other reason, but I wouldn't bet on it.

There are still a lot pf rural people using ADSL / VDSL who need the copper.
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy little classification
in the DSM"
David Melville.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.misc

On 2025-12-16 22:27:08 +0000, ~misfit~ said:

On 16/12/2025 10:50 am, Your Name wrote:

On 2025-12-15 07:47:54 +0000, Lawrence D´Oliveiro said:

On Mon, 15 Dec 2025 15:04:46 +1300, David Goodwin wrote:

The plain old telephone system has suffered the same fate - too few
paying customers to cover the cost of upgrading and maintaining all the >>>> telephone exchanges, so its all being switched off.

I still have landline POTS service. The difference is it’s now over fibre.
It is the physical copper cabling that is being retired.

"Retired", but usually left in place in the case of underground lines.
Maybe they'll bother to pull it out whenever they have to dig holes for
some other reason, but I wouldn't bet on it.

There are still a lot pf rural people using ADSL / VDSL who need the copper.

Not for much longer. The plan is to "retire" the entire copper line
network by 2030. Rural people will have to switch to some other, more expensive, connection type.


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2