Throw a Weight in the Back?

On 26 Jul 2003 19:37:13 -0500, Steve House wrote:

you can't trim the quoted test, can you?

You seem to be more concerned about cost to the ISP than cost to the
consumer.


As I am a (very small) ISP I do care, yes.

The ISP promises unlimited access for a fixed fee - kewl, let's
do it! If you can't deliver it, don't advertise it. Consumers who USE the
bandwidth advertised are a PITA I guess, especially those that actually
expect that when they pay for something promised it's cheerfully delivered?
LOL

Cancelling a contract is gladly not only a one way possibility.

Frankly I don't CARE what the cost to the ISP is.

The industriy for sure needs more guys like you.

If they can't make a
profit charging me what they do, that's their problem, not mine.

true

All I care
about is that they provide the service they promised when I pay their bill,
24/7 - it's up to them to figure out how. MY marginal cost to DL a file,
regardless of size, is zero. I'm paying for the connection to the network,
not the data passing over it.

I do care that my ISP also survives the next month.

Let's see if I understand your message here - if it comes from or has
anything to do with or even tangentially touches MS it's evil, wrong
thinking, subversive perhaps? "Real" computer people won't touch it? Ahhh,
of course...


No, you have to deal with M$. You can earn your money supporting M$.
Haven't made a buck up til today with supporting Apple.

Life is evolving and evolution is the definition of life.

Evolution? But the bible ...

:-)

#m

--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

24 "Deceptions" In 704 words: Bush's 2003 SOTU
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor...7/22_sotu.html

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...
On 26 Jul 2003 19:37:13 -0500, Steve House wrote:

you can't trim the quoted test, can you?



Sure I can. Is this better? Now, of course, no one reading this message
sees any of what you wrote except that one line and unless they have been
faithfully reading this thread for the last several days they have no idea
of the contexts of your remark or my reply to it. I suspect that the vast
majority of people reading these words are lurkers who visit maybe once or
twice a week. Most ISPs that I'm aware of have just a few days dwell time
for the messages on their news servers. By tomorrow or the day after many
people reading this would not be able to go back and retrieve your message
that prompted this response to if they wished to see what you had written.
They certainly would not be able to get back to the even earlier messages in
the thread. (Yes, I know about Google and I know other subscription servers
have much longer retention times, that's one reason I use one myself). By
not trimming the quotes to any great extent, OTOH, other readers in the
thread would be able to see your comments in their entirety, and if
interested my comments that had prompted yours and so forth back in line,
without have to search Google and irrespective of whether their ISP is
retaining the thread or not. I've suggested that when data comms were
expensive the "no top post, trim all the quotes to the bone" approach made
perfect sense but now that data transfer is cheaper than dirt the
disadvantages outway the advantages.

On 27 Jul 2003 07:51:06 -0500, Steve House wrote:

you can't trim the quoted test, can you?
^^^^

should have been "rest". sorry - a typo.

Sure I can. Is this better?


a litle bit. you cutted away the text you are _referring_ to.

Now, of course, no one reading this message
sees any of what you wrote except that one line and unless they have been
faithfully reading this thread for the last several days they have no idea
of the contexts of your remark or my reply to it. I suspect that the vast
majority of people reading these words are lurkers who visit maybe once or
twice a week.

wild guesses

Most ISPs that I'm aware of have just a few days dwell time
for the messages on their news servers.


you mean those who offer flat high speed access for very little money? you
get what you pay for.

By tomorrow or the day after many
people reading this would not be able to go back and retrieve your message
that prompted this response to if they wished to see what you had written.

bad news servers. their problem, not mine.

They certainly would not be able to get back to the even earlier messages in
the thread. (Yes, I know about Google and I know other subscription servers
have much longer retention times, that's one reason I use one myself). By

ok

not trimming the quotes to any great extent, OTOH, other readers in the
thread would be able to see your comments in their entirety, and if
interested my comments that had prompted yours and so forth back in line,
without have to search Google and irrespective of whether their ISP is
retaining the thread or not.


the references are in the header.

I've suggested that when data comms were
expensive the "no top post, trim all the quotes to the bone" approach made
perfect sense but now that data transfer is cheaper than dirt the
disadvantages outway the advantages.

you know how usenet works? how often is your posting duplicated all over
the world?
Besides these are the rules of the usenet. Go and build your usenet and
apply your rules there, it is rather easy to do. Just start your own - for
example - stevehouse.* hierarchy.

OK, what is your estimate on what bandwidth costs? what do you think is the
cost for one megabit transit? (and now we haven't even calculated expenses
for operating the network, etc.)

And bandwidth is only a fraction of the total cost. Just check your
hardware vendor for some storage systems to hold several gigs. Then go for
the hardware to spool it. Then also count the feed-traffic and also the
'get' traffic.

It would be best if everybody would just log on to a big terminal server in
Redmont, eh? This would solve many problems.

#m
--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

24 "Deceptions" In 704 words: Bush's 2003 SOTU
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor...7/22_sotu.html

On Sun, 27 Jul 2003 15:44:11 +0200, Martin Hotze wrote:

On 27 Jul 2003 07:51:06 -0500, Steve House wrote:

you can't trim the quoted test, can you?
^^^^

should have been "rest". sorry - a typo.

bullsh** .. s/test/text

*arrggg* ... and supersede does not work here. *hmpf*

f-up2poster

#m

--
http://www.usawatch.org/ http://www.alternet.org/

24 "Deceptions" In 704 words: Bush's 2003 SOTU
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributor...7/22_sotu.html