A Broadband and ADSL forum. BroadbanterBanter

Welcome to BroadbanterBanter.

You are currently viewing as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today.

Go Back   Home » BroadbanterBanter forum » Newsgroup Discussions » uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) (uk.telecom.broadband) Discussion of broadband services, technology and equipment as provided in the UK. Discussions of specific services based on ADSL, cable modems or other broadband technology are also on-topic. Advertising is not allowed.

Open circuit voltage on phone line very very low.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 5th 17, 05:41 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Tweed[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Open circuit voltage on phone line very very low.

NY wrote:
"Woody" wrote in message
news
I'm not greedy: I don't expect my mobile broadband speed to be even as
fast as ADSL (8 Mbps), never mind FTTC speeds (30+ Mbps), but I would
like 100% coverage of phone and at least 2 Mbps throughout the UK.


Ah, like me, another O2 user?


No Vodafone. And Orange and 3 are as bad: my wife's tried both networks and
found that they are equally as bad around where we live. Orange used to be
really bad - it was a case of walking up the road to the fifth chestnut tree
to get any reception. Now at least it's been upgraded to hanging out of the
bathroom window ;-)



How modern is your phone? With all the refarming of spectrum from 3G to 4G
on Vodafone you need a handset that has both the hardware and firmware
capabilities of dealing with all of this. Otherwise you end up with a
degraded subset of what the network can provide.

  #22  
Old August 5th 17, 09:00 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 295
Default Open circuit voltage on phone line very very low.

"Tweed" wrote in message
news
NY wrote:
"Woody" wrote in message
news
I'm not greedy: I don't expect my mobile broadband speed to be even as
fast as ADSL (8 Mbps), never mind FTTC speeds (30+ Mbps), but I would
like 100% coverage of phone and at least 2 Mbps throughout the UK.

Ah, like me, another O2 user?


No Vodafone. And Orange and 3 are as bad: my wife's tried both networks
and
found that they are equally as bad around where we live. Orange used to
be
really bad - it was a case of walking up the road to the fifth chestnut
tree
to get any reception. Now at least it's been upgraded to hanging out of
the
bathroom window ;-)


How modern is your phone? With all the refarming of spectrum from 3G to 4G
on Vodafone you need a handset that has both the hardware and firmware
capabilities of dealing with all of this. Otherwise you end up with a
degraded subset of what the network can provide.


I've got a Samsung Galaxy S7 and my wife has a Samsung Note S5. When I
upgraded from my previous Samsung Galaxy S2 I didn't find that mobile
reception improved because my new phone could receive mobile frequencies
that the old one couldn't. On the other hand, I *did* notice that the GPS
locked-on more quickly and gave more accurate results because it can see
additional satellites that the old one can't. I don't think I ever saw 4G
data on my old phone, even in a large town, so that might have been a
difference, but for ordinary phone calls, it seems the same.

My perception is that data and voice don't always correlate: I've seen times
when my phone is getting a 4G data connection and yet I get very low voice
signal strength or even the dreaded "not registered on network" error. I've
never managed to work out what the difference is between no bars of signal
strength (maybe displayed as a no-entry symbol in place of signal strength),
and "not registered on network". I'd have thought that the latter would be a
consequence of the former, but evidently there are degrees of "no
signal"-ness :-)

It seems counter-intuitive that in a big city with high buildings all
around, the mobile reception is better than out in the country where the
terrain is flatter and there are fewer obstructions. But it's all down to
how closely-spaced the transmitters are.

  #23  
Old August 5th 17, 10:11 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Tweed[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Open circuit voltage on phone line very very low.

NY wrote:
"Tweed" wrote in message
news
NY wrote:
"Woody" wrote in message
news I'm not greedy: I don't expect my mobile broadband speed to be even as
fast as ADSL (8 Mbps), never mind FTTC speeds (30+ Mbps), but I would
like 100% coverage of phone and at least 2 Mbps throughout the UK.

Ah, like me, another O2 user?

No Vodafone. And Orange and 3 are as bad: my wife's tried both networks
and
found that they are equally as bad around where we live. Orange used to
be
really bad - it was a case of walking up the road to the fifth chestnut
tree
to get any reception. Now at least it's been upgraded to hanging out of
the
bathroom window ;-)


How modern is your phone? With all the refarming of spectrum from 3G to 4G
on Vodafone you need a handset that has both the hardware and firmware
capabilities of dealing with all of this. Otherwise you end up with a
degraded subset of what the network can provide.


I've got a Samsung Galaxy S7 and my wife has a Samsung Note S5. When I
upgraded from my previous Samsung Galaxy S2 I didn't find that mobile
reception improved because my new phone could receive mobile frequencies
that the old one couldn't. On the other hand, I *did* notice that the GPS
locked-on more quickly and gave more accurate results because it can see
additional satellites that the old one can't. I don't think I ever saw 4G
data on my old phone, even in a large town, so that might have been a
difference, but for ordinary phone calls, it seems the same.

My perception is that data and voice don't always correlate: I've seen times
when my phone is getting a 4G data connection and yet I get very low voice
signal strength or even the dreaded "not registered on network" error. I've
never managed to work out what the difference is between no bars of signal
strength (maybe displayed as a no-entry symbol in place of signal strength),
and "not registered on network". I'd have thought that the latter would be a
consequence of the former, but evidently there are degrees of "no
signal"-ness :-)

It seems counter-intuitive that in a big city with high buildings all
around, the mobile reception is better than out in the country where the
terrain is flatter and there are fewer obstructions. But it's all down to
how closely-spaced the transmitters are.



As the network currently stands there is good reason why 4G data and voice
don't always correlate. In most places Vodafone's network cannot carry
voice calls on 4G and has to drop to 3 or 2G. As these are likely to be on
different frequency bands, and perhaps different masts for that matter, you
can have good 4G but an inability to make a voice call. I think most phones
show the signal strength of the 4G network if present. VoLTE is being
introduced in some areas now (it's been coming real soon now for a number
of years, so must have been harder than first thought) where the 4G network
can carry voice calls. The fundamental difference is that 4G is entirely IP
based and can't carry circuit switched calls. Everything has to be VOIP
based. However, back to the original point, you wouldn't really want to
infill areas of poor reception with 3G when you can use 4G, especially when
VoLTE is fully rolled out. (And you also need a handset that can do VoLTE).
Pretty much all new base station kit can handle 2/3/4G, it's all software
defined radio. So I guess they press a few buttons and the proportion of
2/3/4G on a particular frequency band can be changed at will.

  #24  
Old August 6th 17, 11:31 AM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Roderick Stewart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 474
Default Open circuit voltage on phone line very very low.

On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 13:21:42 +0100, "NY" wrote:

No. If an area doesn't have 3G the best thing is to deploy straight to 4G.
There is no sensible reason these days to go via 3G. 4G uses the spectrum
more efficiently. The amount of spectrum being allocated to 3G is steadily
being reduced and reallocated to 4G.


Agreed. But unfortunately the upgrade from 2G (either to 3G or 4G) is very
low priority: I reckon they'll upgrade some of the cities to 5G or even 6G
long before they upgrade the rural areas to even vaguely usable gap-free
coverage of 3G standard.


I neither know nor care how many "G"s my phone system has. I'd just
like to be able to make a phone call reliably without having to walk
halfway down my front path. Will they ever manage that?

Rod.
  #25  
Old August 6th 17, 12:19 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Tweed[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Open circuit voltage on phone line very very low.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sat, 5 Aug 2017 13:21:42 +0100, "NY" wrote:

No. If an area doesn't have 3G the best thing is to deploy straight to 4G.
There is no sensible reason these days to go via 3G. 4G uses the spectrum
more efficiently. The amount of spectrum being allocated to 3G is steadily
being reduced and reallocated to 4G.


Agreed. But unfortunately the upgrade from 2G (either to 3G or 4G) is very
low priority: I reckon they'll upgrade some of the cities to 5G or even 6G
long before they upgrade the rural areas to even vaguely usable gap-free
coverage of 3G standard.


I neither know nor care how many "G"s my phone system has. I'd just
like to be able to make a phone call reliably without having to walk
halfway down my front path. Will they ever manage that?

Rod.


Probably not. Cell phone coverage, by its very nature is never going to
manage 100% coverage. Certain areas are always going to be in shadow. In
cities the chance of being in shadow goes down as the density of cells goes
up to maintain the required throughput. So if you can't see one cell you
might see another. In rural areas the traffic density is lower, so the
number of cells is correspondingly lower. Cell sites cost quite a lot of
money, so you would have to pay a significantly higher monthly cost for
blanket coverage. That would then generate another set of complaints.
Perhaps the real hope for rural users lies in the emergency services
migration to 4G. They are users who are prepared to pay significantly more
for blanket coverage. If you really want coverage in your house choose an
operator and handset that supports wifi calling. Mind you, I do see an
argument for proper provision of fixed line high speed broadband to all
rural customers. We managed rural electrification to lots of hopelessly
uneconomic locations in the past, when the country was a lot poorer.

  #26  
Old August 6th 17, 12:52 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Graham J[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 575
Default Open circuit voltage on phone line very very low.

Tweed wrote:

[snip]

Mind you, I do see an
argument for proper provision of fixed line high speed broadband to
all rural customers. We managed rural electrification to lots of
hopelessly uneconomic locations in the past, when the country was a
lot poorer.


I'm not sure the country was actually poorer. In the late 1940's we
managed not only rural electrification but a significant aircraft
industry (e.g. De Havilland, Avro, Vickers, Armstrong Whitworth, Handley
Page, Lockheed, Short, Rolls Ryce), and a rail service that covered much
of the country; as well as rebuilding war damage and starting the
National Health Service.

I don't remember my parents (schoolteachers) complaining at the time of
high taxation - low salaries, perhaps, yes. But other people seemed to
do OK.

--
Graham J






  #27  
Old August 6th 17, 05:24 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Tweed[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Open circuit voltage on phone line very very low.

Graham J wrote:
Tweed wrote:

[snip]

Mind you, I do see an
argument for proper provision of fixed line high speed broadband to
all rural customers. We managed rural electrification to lots of
hopelessly uneconomic locations in the past, when the country was a
lot poorer.


I'm not sure the country was actually poorer. In the late 1940's we
managed not only rural electrification but a significant aircraft
industry (e.g. De Havilland, Avro, Vickers, Armstrong Whitworth, Handley
Page, Lockheed, Short, Rolls Ryce), and a rail service that covered much
of the country; as well as rebuilding war damage and starting the
National Health Service.

I don't remember my parents (schoolteachers) complaining at the time of
high taxation - low salaries, perhaps, yes. But other people seemed to
do OK.


I think by any rational measure living standards for *most* people are
higher today. In the early post war years expectations were lower. That's
why I think rural "broadbandification" ought to be possible. Some things
should not be left to the market. Add building a motorway network to the
list of things we did then but are incapable of doing now.

  #28  
Old August 6th 17, 06:20 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Graham J[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 575
Default Open circuit voltage on phone line very very low.

Tweed wrote:
Graham J wrote:
Tweed wrote:

[snip]

Mind you, I do see an
argument for proper provision of fixed line high speed broadband to
all rural customers. We managed rural electrification to lots of
hopelessly uneconomic locations in the past, when the country was a
lot poorer.


I'm not sure the country was actually poorer. In the late 1940's we
managed not only rural electrification but a significant aircraft
industry (e.g. De Havilland, Avro, Vickers, Armstrong Whitworth, Handley
Page, Lockheed, Short, Rolls Ryce), and a rail service that covered much
of the country; as well as rebuilding war damage and starting the
National Health Service.

I don't remember my parents (schoolteachers) complaining at the time of
high taxation - low salaries, perhaps, yes. But other people seemed to
do OK.


I think by any rational measure living standards for *most* people are
higher today. In the early post war years expectations were lower. That's
why I think rural "broadbandification" ought to be possible. Some things
should not be left to the market. Add building a motorway network to the
list of things we did then but are incapable of doing now.


My schoolteacher parents were able to buy a house, as well. Can't see
young teachers buying a house these days ...

But broadband is cheaper than a motorway, and arguably more appropriate
today with climate change. Anything we can do to avoid travel ...!

--
Graham J

  #29  
Old August 6th 17, 07:34 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 295
Default Open circuit voltage on phone line very very low.

"Tweed" wrote in message
news
I think by any rational measure living standards for *most* people are
higher today. In the early post war years expectations were lower. That's
why I think rural "broadbandification" ought to be possible. Some things
should not be left to the market. Add building a motorway network to the
list of things we did then but are incapable of doing now.


I was surprised when I was talking recently to people who were about my age,
to find out how many of their parents didn't have a phone in the late 60s or
even well into the mid/late 70s. My parents had a phone right from when we
moved to the first house that I can remember in 1967, and they may well have
had a phone in their two previous houses. And I believe my grandparents (one
set were teacher and headmaster respectively, the other grandfather was an
insurance loss-adjustor) had phones when my parents first met because I've
heard my parents talking about phoning each other to arrange where to meet
in town - assuming they hadn't already arranged this at the place where they
both worked :-)

Likewise a friend whose father was a printer had a phone, as did the people
next door to them - this is inferred from the fact that they had a party
line. I only found out recently that a party line wasn't a lower-cost option
as an alternative to an exclusive line - it was the *only* option in places
where there were insufficient pairs between that street and the exchange. I
wish now I hadn't teased Richard about his parents having a cheapskate
phone, as if they'd had a choice in the matter :-)

  #30  
Old August 6th 17, 07:46 PM posted to uk.telecom.broadband
Graham J[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 575
Default Open circuit voltage on phone line very very low.

NY wrote:
"Tweed" wrote in message
news
I think by any rational measure living standards for *most* people are
higher today. In the early post war years expectations were lower. That's
why I think rural "broadbandification" ought to be possible. Some things
should not be left to the market. Add building a motorway network to the
list of things we did then but are incapable of doing now.


I was surprised when I was talking recently to people who were about my
age, to find out how many of their parents didn't have a phone in the
late 60s or even well into the mid/late 70s. My parents had a phone
right from when we moved to the first house that I can remember in 1967,
and they may well have had a phone in their two previous houses. And I
believe my grandparents (one set were teacher and headmaster
respectively, the other grandfather was an insurance loss-adjustor) had
phones when my parents first met because I've heard my parents talking
about phoning each other to arrange where to meet in town - assuming
they hadn't already arranged this at the place where they both worked :-)

Likewise a friend whose father was a printer had a phone, as did the
people next door to them - this is inferred from the fact that they had
a party line. I only found out recently that a party line wasn't a
lower-cost option as an alternative to an exclusive line - it was the
*only* option in places where there were insufficient pairs between that
street and the exchange. I wish now I hadn't teased Richard about his
parents having a cheapskate phone, as if they'd had a choice in the
matter :-)



We had a party line in 1973 ...

In the 1950s house owners very often didn't have a phone. It wasn't
seen as a domestic necessity, really only businesses had them. Post
achieved next day delivery across the UK and often to European capitals.
In 1965 I went to Paris on a school exchange for a week over the
Easter weekend. I was able to send a card to my mother and receive a reply!

But travel from Colchester by train and boat took absolutely all day!

--
Graham J




 




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SPA1001 / Sipgate - open line? Mick uk.telecom.voip (UK VOIP) 13 November 1st 06 10:08 PM
PAP2 Ring Voltage {{{{{Welcome}}}}} uk.telecom.voip (UK VOIP) 1 July 29th 06 07:50 PM
'slamming' DSL circuit Gary Williams uk.telecom.broadband (UK broadband) 6 July 31st 05 08:01 PM
Grandstream 486 - Onhook voltage George uk.telecom.voip (UK VOIP) 1 July 26th 05 10:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 BroadbanterBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.