admittedly sometimes the powergen site is hard to get on but yes i have
always been able to see all the bills, i found opera as a browser to be
better for the powergen site for some reason though :-)
--
----
"Sometimes I worry about being a success in a mediocre world."
forgot to add only oncfe did i get the error message but it worked ok after
that , have yo phoned them to query it, they use 0800 numbers unlike most
other utilities :-)
--
----
"Sometimes I worry about being a success in a mediocre world."
In article <s1cgh15q1h75u03e2ee2e9dfpf215d2se3@4ax.com>, Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk says...
> On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 08:58:06 +0100, AD C <graphi47uk@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >My computer is on 24/7 and it don't cost me £60 a year, in fact I got 2
> >computers on 24/7 and it don't cost me £60 a year.
> We have two running 24/7 and if they where costing so much to run they
> would run out the front door quicker than they came in :))) .
>
Agree, I think my T.v costs more to run than the computers and that is
only on a couple of hours a day, three at the most. Even then, there are
some days, where it is not even switched on.
In article <4319a107$0$25428$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, abuse@dopiaza.cabal.org.uk says...
>
> Iridium is a propietary mobile phone system, not a broadband system.
> Similar technology *could* be used to provide broadband, but Iridium
> concentrate more on voice.
I never heard of it, but that means nothing :-)
> [...]
> > My computer is on 24/7 and it don't cost me £60 a year, in fact I
> > got 2 computers on 24/7 and it don't cost me £60 a year.
>
> Are you sure of that?
Oh yes.
>
> I've put a power meter on various of my machines. The power
> consumption varies on all sorts of factors, but the readings varied
> between 90-180W at idle. The newer the machine, the more power it
> tends to draw.
>
> Let's take 120W as a reasonable average. So over an hour, it will
> consume 0.12kWh of energy. Multiply by 24 and 365.25 and you discover
> that it will consume 1052kWh over a year.
>
> The cost per kWh varies depending on your supplier and tariff, but it
> averages around 6p/kWh. 1052kWh * 0.05p/kWh = 6312p, or slightly over
> 60 quid.
Since my electric bill is only £180-£200 a year, I doubt £60 of that is
for the computers. Until the last few months, my cooking was by electric
as well. My electric bill should way down now.
a computer will only use what it needs, if it is idle, then it uses less
electric, the monitors are switched off most of the time and this
computer which is my main one have a LCd monitor anyway.
>
> [...]
> > But not everyone wants to go to that trouble just to have cheaper
> > calls to other countries, which is what people will use Skype for
> > most of the time.
>
> Strange. I took one look at X-Lite and found it lacking, and a pain to
> use. The Sipura mostly just works.
What is X-lite?
> Well, yes, you don't actually save any money on the VoIP services
> offered to consumers. That end of the market seems to be mostly
> chancers preying on customers who have heard that "VoIP is cheap" and
> don't look too closely at the prices.
so I will go back to my very first post on this newsgroup. What is the
point of it all?
>
> Check out Gradwell's price list for a WTF? moment. Remember that you
> need to add VAT on top. (Quoting ex-VAT prices to consumers? Naughty,
> naughty...)
>
Whose price list? My ISP had their prices excluding V.a.t on the front
page, they have changed it now mind you.
On Fri, 2 Sep 2005 22:03:20 +0100, AD C <graphi47uk@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk>
wrote:
>In article <1125622616.815145.64040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups. com>,
>ledlight@gmail.com says...
>> Well mebbe wires going way of telegrams and telegraph.
>>
>Not for a long time.
>
>> Got WiFi, GSM, satellite and coming soon, for next few years, WiMax.
>> None of them a one size fits all solution in themselves but combined
>> get rid of some of reasons for having wires or fibres.
>
>wi-fi have got problems with distance, GSM is too expensive and also got
>blackspots. Satellite hyas too much of a delay and most of the time it
>is only one way, so you still need a phone line to transmitt the data.
The capacity of any kind of radio link is going to be limited if you
want to have multiple users in nearby locations. With physical cables,
every house in the street can have a 2Mb ADSL link. Try to do that
with radio and see how fast you run out of bandwidth.
> <Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> [...]
>> It is wrong for BT to force someone to have a phone line when all they
>> need it for is an ADSL connection,
>
> If you don't have a phone line, how on earth are BT supposed to deliver
> ADSL? RFC1149 avian carrier? Telepathy?
Yet you are forced to have "Option 1" which includes bundled voice so you
are forced to buy a telephone service.
steve <steve@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 00:50:17 +0000, Peter wrote:
[...]
>> If you don't have a phone line, how on earth are BT supposed to
>> deliver ADSL? RFC1149 avian carrier? Telepathy?
> Yet you are forced to have "Option 1" which includes bundled voice
> so you are forced to buy a telephone service.
Due to the wonders of economics, the telephone service component
actually has a *negative* cost. Take away Option 1 and the phone
service, and the cost rises.
Why are baked beans with added sugar and salt cheaper than those
without?
--
Never keep up with the Joneses. Drag them down to your level.
- Quentin Crisp
Phil Thompson wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 14:26:43 +0100, steve <steve@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>>Yet you are forced to have "Option 1" which includes bundled voice so you
>>are forced to buy a telephone service.
>
> there's no bundled call time in Option 1 ?
Not bundled call time, but discounts on certain types of calls during
certain times of the day.
They don't seem to have a "just line rental, no discounts on calls"
product for residential users.
> My computer is on 24/7 and it don't cost me £60 a year, in fact I got 2
> computers on 24/7 and it don't cost me £60 a year.
I'm curious to know how you can run a computer (let alone two computers)
for less than £60 a year. Let's say it uses 100W (it probably uses more
when you're actually using it), and electricity is about 7p per kWh. So,
0.1 * 24 * 365 * 0.07 = £61.32. Where's the flaw in my arithmetic?
--
Steve Loft
In article <dff6mo$140s$1@custnews.inweb.co.uk>, paul@cupis.co.uk
says...
>
> They don't seem to have a "just line rental, no discounts on calls"
> product for residential users.
>
That what annoyed me when I first changed over to a new phone service
supplier. BT started this silly idea of sticking an extra quid onto
their line rental, just after I changed over. They done it to make it
more expensive for people like me to use other suppliers, as at the
time, I was paying £1.99 for the same thing as Option one. My suppiser
now do not charge for that and they have alstaken over the line rental
and kncoked £2 a month off that as well.
With the cheaper calls, I am better off without BT.
In article <dKFSe.63813$cv3.44080@fe12.news.easynews.com>, steve@nybbles.co.uk says...
> I'm curious to know how you can run a computer (let alone two computers)
> for less than £60 a year. Let's say it uses 100W (it probably uses more
> when you're actually using it), and electricity is about 7p per kWh. So,
> 0.1 * 24 * 365 * 0.07 = £61.32. Where's the flaw in my arithmetic?
>
I doubt there is nay flaw, but theory do not always work out in
practice. Most computers use very little power when they are idle.
>> I'm curious to know how you can run a computer (let alone two computers)
>> for less than £60 a year. Let's say it uses 100W (it probably uses more
>> when you're actually using it), and electricity is about 7p per kWh. So,
>> 0.1 * 24 * 365 * 0.07 = £61.32. Where's the flaw in my arithmetic?
>
> I doubt there is nay flaw, but theory do not always work out in
> practice. Most computers use very little power when they are idle.
PCPlus did a test this month using power meters. They found that when idle,
an athlon 64 computer used 132W, while a P4 used 170W.
Shockingly, even when switched off they used 27W and 28W repectively. That
can't be just wol, surely! As would be expected S3 standby mode used only a
little more power. It is a very neat standby mode in my view.
On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 08:20:21 +0100, AD C <graphi47uk@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk>
wrote:
>With the cheaper calls, I am better off without BT.
and sometimes people are better off with BT and the full choice of
alternative carriers.
Depends on calling patterns etc. Unless the cheaper line rental
company gives the lowest rates available the saving of the odd quid on
rental can soon be lost on call charges or things like minimum or call
connection charges compared to using BT rental with death rate call
carriers.
Phil
--
Remember - Global Warming is only a weather forecast :-)
AD C <graphi47uk@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
> I doubt there is nay flaw, but theory do not always work out in
> practice. Most computers use very little power when they are idle.
What's theory got to do with it? I used a power meter, tried the
machine with disks running and idle, ditto the CPU.
On a P200MMX, I was getting a base load of about 60W, plus 10W per
disk, plus another 10W when the CPU was in use. Power factor was about
0.6-0.7. So the true power is 90W and it requires 150VA. I was getting
similar figures for a PII system.
An Athlon XP2200+ system (a bottom-spec Flexiserv 1/2U system, as it
so happens) drew an astonishing 180W at idle.
My power meter is just left plugged into the input of my UPS, which
powers my 24/7 Linux box (an 800MHz PIII), router, cordless phone,
etc. It's clocked up well over 100 quid in the last year.
100 quid isn't bad for what that Linux box is doing, but I'd have a
hard job justifying a second machine and another 60 quid a year just
for Skype.
--
The traditional flaming Christmas pudding for example dates back to the 17th
century, when a form of stiff porridge was made containing plums, preserved
quinces, lemon peel, ox blood and grated pig livers. All bound together with
goose fat. No wonder they set fire to it. - Humphrey Lyttelton, ISIHAC
> >Yes, I kind of agree, but then even lines need replacing or fixing.
> None of the poles or lines from poles to houses have been replaced in
> the last 25 years that I know of so every single penny BT have got
> from people around here has been near enough pure profit .
>
BT have been busy here, a lot of poles are being replaced, some are
being replaced with metal ones. Almost every week for the last couple of
months, there have been notices going up on different pole to say they
are going to be renewed. As for phone lines, you are right there, as
they are not touched, apart from reconnecting them back to the pole.
My cable should have been replaced 33-4 years ago and still nothing have
been done.
But I agree with you, normally BT do not touch thepoles, I got no idea
why they are around here.
In article <dfgs7r$gjq$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk>, fliblebibble@adamsonfdfgdf.com says...
>
> PCPlus did a test this month using power meters. They found that when idle,
> an athlon 64 computer used 132W, while a P4 used 170W.
Well, I can tell you now, that my computers do not cost £60 a year to
run.
>
> Shockingly, even when switched off they used 27W and 28W repectively. That
If left connected to the mains, they will, but then, so do videos, set
top boxes, T.v's left in standby, and a lot of other electrical
products,
> can't be just wol, surely! As would be expected S3 standby mode used onlya
> little more power. It is a very neat standby mode in my view.
>
S3 is a pain in the neck, if you are on a network. Everytime I put my
computer on any standby, when it returns, it can't find the network.
In article <431c3ec7$0$22097$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, abuse@dopiaza.cabal.org.uk says...
> AD C <graphi47uk@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk> wrote:
> [...]
> > I doubt there is nay flaw, but theory do not always work out in
> > practice. Most computers use very little power when they are idle.
>
> What's theory got to do with it? I used a power meter, tried the
> machine with disks running and idle, ditto the CPU.
>
> On a P200MMX, I was getting a base load of about 60W, plus 10W per
> disk, plus another 10W when the CPU was in use. Power factor was about
> 0.6-0.7. So the true power is 90W and it requires 150VA. I was getting
> similar figures for a PII system.
>
> An Athlon XP2200+ system (a bottom-spec Flexiserv 1/2U system, as it
> so happens) drew an astonishing 180W at idle.
>
> My power meter is just left plugged into the input of my UPS, which
> powers my 24/7 Linux box (an 800MHz PIII), router, cordless phone,
> etc. It's clocked up well over 100 quid in the last year.
>
> 100 quid isn't bad for what that Linux box is doing, but I'd have a
> hard job justifying a second machine and another 60 quid a year just
> for Skype.
>
>
As I said, I do not use £60 a year on my computer, so something must be
wrong somewhere. I don't use skype, in fact the only reason I leave my
computer on is because of access. I can come upstairs and acess the net
or do anything else I want to do, without waiting for the thing to boot
up. the other computer is used for the security camera.
In article <226ph11f80pki6p7ldam8u11vo12v0ojgg@4ax.com>, phil.thompson@spamcop.net says...
>
> might be to get 5.5m clearance on the road, or maybe the pole was
> decayed.
>
The new ones are going up in the same place as the old ones, I doubt all
of them are decayed. Maybe BT thought they better do something for their
money :-)
In article <dfi5gh$si1$1@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk>, fliblebibble@adamsonfdfgdf.com says...
> > S3 is a pain in the neck, if you are on a network. Everytime I put my
> > computer on any standby, when it returns, it can't find the network.
>
> I'm glad you said that as I have had exactly the same problem. It worked
> fine with a wireless network, but it gets in a right bob on my wired one.
>
>
>
It fails on the wireless and the wired network here.
Thus spaketh Mathew Curtis:
> Dexter@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
>> On 1 Sep 2005 05:26:24 -0700, "Mathew Curtis"
>> <mathew.j.curtis@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Wow that was very reserved dex well done :-) and I do agree with you
>>> 100% there is a small handful of very good voip providers and more
>>> and more people seem to be doing away with landlines and going the
>>> voip route
>> I would think if NTL and Telewest where to spend a bit/lot of money
>> and had the same coverage that BT has with ADSL then they could
>> easily knock BT completely out of residential line provision, the
>> way with VOIP is not having to pay BT for line rental at all and
>> having an Internet and phone service combined for the price of a
>> broadband connection . Has it is shortly going to be possible to
>> have a 10 Mb connection with TW for 35.00 a month I would think
>> people who can
>> get cable will be moving over and slinging out BT and their ADSL
>> ISP's .
>
> yep i agree i done away with bt and i am with NTL Broadband now and
> not looked back
>
> Mat
I'm having TW broadband installed Friday, and once the upload speed is
increased I will be doing away with my BT landline.
Thus spaketh Ivor Jones:
> "UKHierarchy" <UK@Hierarchy.uk> wrote in message
> news:GSfSe.1019$7p1.870@newsfe7-win.ntli.net
>> what about the potential risk of fir dex, why do you
>> need 2 pcs just out of curiosity and also how much is
>> your averag monthly electric bill ?
>
> The fire risk from a PC is relatively small. The biggest risk is from
> the monitor, although that is less now that flat screens are becoming
> common. I once had an old CRT monitor burst into flames in front of
> my eyes, that plug got pulled out pretty quick..!!
>
> Ivor
Was that an Amstrad monitor, they were known to catch fire, we used to get
loads of them in with all the plastic melted.
In article <fuunh15tpu976ll5llh2soh5l0p2vbj154@4ax.com>, phil.thompson@spamcop.net says...
> >With the cheaper calls, I am better off without BT.
>
> and sometimes people are better off with BT and the full choice of
> alternative carriers.
>
My parents for instance.
> Depends on calling patterns etc. Unless the cheaper line rental
> company gives the lowest rates available the saving of the odd quid on
> rental can soon be lost on call charges or things like minimum or call
> connection charges compared to using BT rental with death rate call
> carriers.
>
My parents get the low user rebate, which they would not get if they
swopped. They use the phone very little.
> >The new ones are going up in the same place as the old ones, I doubt all
> >of them are decayed.
>
> are they the same height ?
>
As far as I can tell. I noticed that they have stuck a notice on the one
outside my house this morning, They are doing the work sometime next
month, not sure when, since I did not take a good look at it yet.
AD C <graphi47uk@y.a.h.o.o.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
> As I said, I do not use £60 a year on my computer,
OK, I'm not going to outright come and say "you're wrong", but can you
explain how you've come to this conclusion? Unless your electricity is
free or below cost, or your computer isn't a PC, or it's not running
24/7, it seems unlikely.
If you're just going by the size of your bill and guessing, you'd be
surprised. In my last house (I get "free" electricity in this one)
which had gas heating and cooking, approximately 70% of the
GBP80/quarter electricity bill was due to computers and associated
equipment.
--
PGP key ID E85DC776 - finger abuse@mooli.org.uk for full key
/:.*posting.google.com.*/HX-Trace:+j
Re: The future of VOIP providers in the UK 
Linear Mode
