I've Seen the Future

In article , Ron Hunter
writes
I am sure that most of the UK phone system is newer than some in the US
(because of historical conditions).

I doubt that very much, if for no other reason than the rate of new
building in the US. Lack of space and planning restrictions prevent the
building and associated infrastructure turnover rates in the UK being
anywhere near what they are in the US.

It is true that we transitioned to mainly underground supply of
telephone and power in the latter half of the 20th century rather than
overhead cable delivery that is still quite common in the US. In part,
this was driven by defence concerns following a period in the middle of
the last century which demonstrated the vulnerability to communications
networks that overhead cables caused in times of conflict.

I know that the lines here (paper wrapped solid copper in a lead tube!)
haven't been updated since 1968

That would classify as an "almost new" copper loop then.

(and probably not since the 1800's). Many of the phone systems in the
US are even older. Before I switched to cable, the best speeds I could
get on dialup were 24.6kbps. The DSLReports database reports I am
18,000 feet from the nearest office/DSLAM.

That is more likely to be the main difference between UK & US telephony
- the sheer distances involved. From memory, I think the maximum
distance for DSL to get an OK in the BT database is 3km from the DSLAM,
or about 10,000ft. Beyond that and it is likely to require an engineer
to test the specific line quality and amend the database before you get
it.

I currently get cable internet service at $40/month and 3mbps down,
256kbps up.

Here, I have a relatively expensive (by comparison to competitors)
supply of 2M up and 256k down for 24.99GBP/month. (approx $44/month
inc. tax). Other providers offer similar rates for as little as 2/3 of
this cost, but offer fewer services. So costs appear to be similar,
possibly a little cheaper, here.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

In article lS5Pf.722$123.255@fed1read09, Skip M
writes
"Prometheus" wrote in message
...

My Sony Ericsson K700i with Bluetooth, MP3, FM radio and a camera is about
the same size as my old Nokia 8210 with none of these extras, it is almost
too small to operates. I am not sure why memory should be an issue.

Well, I don't know, but the Samsung a-950s we got from Verizon were
appreciably larger than the phones they replaced. Much thicker, a little
longer and wider.

Ah, the "Music Maestro", it's also much thicker, a little longer and
wider than my K750i. Didn't you have a better choice, if I am not
offered the phone that I want I just ask for the number release code so
I can use it with a competitor and as if by magic I will be offered
almost anything.

The Razr is only slightly thicker, folded, than the Slvr, which doesn't
fold.

I rather like the idea of a flip-phone (blame James T. Kirk) but I am
much more an engineer than a 'Treaky' and view the flexing of the
connexions between the two halves as a serious failure point, besides
most of such phones are far too thick and often too heavy.

Ah , well, it's all moot, the mfrs will put whatever features they want in a
phone, and most will buy them, because of the one feature that they need.

I think you will find that the manufactures will only develop and
include features that will sell in the market place; this suggests that
there are people hoe just want to talk and people who think they need
everything. I admit I would probably use a smart phone with a camera
comparable to my Minolta Xt, since I carry it around most of the time
having something a little larger would be acceptable to me..
--
Ian G8ILZ

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
In article lS5Pf.722$123.255@fed1read09, Skip M
writes
"Prometheus" wrote in message
...

My Sony Ericsson K700i with Bluetooth, MP3, FM radio and a camera is
about
the same size as my old Nokia 8210 with none of these extras, it is
almost
too small to operates. I am not sure why memory should be an issue.

Well, I don't know, but the Samsung a-950s we got from Verizon were
appreciably larger than the phones they replaced. Much thicker, a little
longer and wider.

Ah, the "Music Maestro", it's also much thicker, a little longer and wider
than my K750i. Didn't you have a better choice, if I am not offered the
phone that I want I just ask for the number release code so I can use it
with a competitor and as if by magic I will be offered almost anything.

The sales guy at Verizon virtually refused to sell us Razrs, kept pushing
the a-950 as a better unit, all 'round. When we bought them and tried them
out, we found them to be sadly lacking in the feature we needed, Bluetooth
connectivity. When we took back over $600 worth of phone equipment, the
sales guy showed an extreme disinterest. Thus our switch from Verizon to
T-mobile. They lost a customer of over 10 years because of one sales guy's
interest in the spiff he got from the Samsung.

The Razr is only slightly thicker, folded, than the Slvr, which doesn't
fold.

I rather like the idea of a flip-phone (blame James T. Kirk) but I am much
more an engineer than a 'Treaky' and view the flexing of the connexions
between the two halves as a serious failure point, besides most of such
phones are far too thick and often too heavy.

I once had a Motorola/Nextel convert itself from flip-phone to flop-phone,
the hinge gave up under duress. But the Razr is thin, light and the hinge
doesn't seem too stressed.

Ah , well, it's all moot, the mfrs will put whatever features they want in
a
phone, and most will buy them, because of the one feature that they need.

I think you will find that the manufactures will only develop and include
features that will sell in the market place; this suggests that there are
people hoe just want to talk and people who think they need everything. I
admit I would probably use a smart phone with a camera comparable to my
Minolta Xt, since I carry it around most of the time having something a
little larger would be acceptable to me..

Yeah, maybe, but I remain unconvinced.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

In article XbsPf.780$123.189@fed1read09, Skip M
writes
"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
I rather like the idea of a flip-phone (blame James T. Kirk) but I am much
more an engineer than a 'Treaky' and view the flexing of the connexions
between the two halves as a serious failure point, besides most of such
phones are far too thick and often too heavy.

I once had a Motorola/Nextel convert itself from flip-phone to flop-phone,
the hinge gave up under duress. But the Razr is thin, light and the hinge
doesn't seem too stressed.

I was thinking of the electrical connexion between the two halves
failing due to movement, I have seen this with a palmtop computer.
--
Ian G8ILZ

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
In article XbsPf.780$123.189@fed1read09, Skip M
writes
"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
I rather like the idea of a flip-phone (blame James T. Kirk) but I am
much
more an engineer than a 'Treaky' and view the flexing of the connexions
between the two halves as a serious failure point, besides most of such
phones are far too thick and often too heavy.

I once had a Motorola/Nextel convert itself from flip-phone to flop-phone,
the hinge gave up under duress. But the Razr is thin, light and the hinge
doesn't seem too stressed.

I was thinking of the electrical connexion between the two halves failing
due to movement, I have seen this with a palmtop computer.


Actually, the electrical connection on the Nextel stayed intact, but I had
to two hand the phone, like the old '20s phones... ;-)

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com