Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted

Liste des GroupesRevenir à rf cooking 
Sujet : Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted
De : michael.trew (at) *nospam* att.net (Michael Trew)
Groupes : rec.food.cooking
Date : 08. Feb 2025, 03:01:45
Autres entêtes
Message-ID : <67a6bb0f$0$2873003$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com>
References : 1 2
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.13.1
On 2/6/2025 10:40 AM, dsi1 wrote:
 One of my clients has a POTS telephone that will randomly drop signal so
she can't understand the person she's talking to. The telephone company
will just shrug and say they don't know what's the problem and they
can't do anything about it. They want her to upgrade her service. I'm
not sure why she doesn't surrender and let the system have its way with
her. It's 2025 and we don't need no copper wire no more!
I received a letter in the mail a few weeks ago "about my phone service".  I still have a traditional land line with unlimited local calling.  Uh oh, looks official...  They said that, pending legislation, they are "grandfathering" analog phone service in a number of mid-west states and beyond.  I can keep my phone line as-is, but I guess they won't be selling phone service to new customers.
My guess, after it's no longer regulated, they'll tell me to go pound salt if I call and say there's an issue with static on the line.  They probably plan to let the existing service lines rot into the ground. Luckily, my phone works fine, for now.  I'll be sad when I can no longer use my harvest gold rotary wall phone.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
6 Feb 25 * [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted38Leonard Blaisdell
6 Feb 25 +* Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted12ItsJoanNotJoAnn
6 Feb 25 i+* Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted3gm
6 Feb 25 ii+- Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted1D
6 Feb 25 ii`- Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted1ItsJoanNotJoAnn
6 Feb 25 i+* Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted7Leonard Blaisdell
6 Feb 25 ii+- Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted1Bruce
6 Feb 25 ii+* Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted2Cindy Hamilton
7 Feb 25 iii`- Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted1songbird
6 Feb 25 ii+- Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted1ItsJoanNotJoAnn
7 Feb 25 ii`* Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted2songbird
7 Feb 25 ii `- Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted1Mike Duffy
6 Feb 25 i`- Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted1D
6 Feb 25 +* Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted3gm
6 Feb 25 i`* Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted2Leonard Blaisdell
6 Feb 25 i `- Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted1gm
6 Feb 25 +- Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted1D
6 Feb 25 +* Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted2Cindy Hamilton
6 Feb 25 i`- Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted1D
6 Feb 25 `* Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted19dsi1
6 Feb 25  +* Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted16ItsJoanNotJoAnn
6 Feb 25  i+* Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted9dsi1
6 Feb 25  ii+- Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted1Bruce
6 Feb 25  ii`* Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted7ItsJoanNotJoAnn
6 Feb 25  ii +* Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted2dsi1
9 Feb 25  ii i`- Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted1Leonard Blaisdell
7 Feb 25  ii `* Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted4songbird
7 Feb 25  ii  +- Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted1Mike Duffy
7 Feb 25  ii  `* Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted2Cindy Hamilton
8 Feb 25  ii   `- Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted1songbird
7 Feb 25  i+* Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted2songbird
7 Feb 25  ii`- Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted1D
9 Feb 25  i`* Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted4Leonard Blaisdell
9 Feb 25  i `* Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted3Cindy Hamilton
9 Feb 25  i  `* Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted2Leonard Blaisdell
9 Feb 25  i   `- Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted1Cindy Hamilton
8 Feb 25  `* Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted2Michael Trew
8 Feb 25   `- Re: [OT] Tragedy, narrowly averted1dsi1

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal