🚀 go-pugleaf

"John Molineux" <nospam@molnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Az1F5.28193$uq5.575870@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> "Covenant" <covenant@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8s24pg$4q2$4@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "PhilCentral" <spam@philcentral.co.uk> wrote in message
> >>The selfish minority are
> >>chokeing each other.....one one hand they are staying connected all the
> > time and on the other moaning when they cannot connect.
> >
> >
> > Would you like to clarify how it is posible to stay on all the time, and
> not
> > connect?
> >
> > You , sir, are an ass.
>
> He doesn't, of course, mean the same person. He means, collectively, the
> group of people who make it their day's aim to milk free ISPs for all they
are worth.



The service is called UNLIMITED and described as an UNMETERED service.
THIS means that EVERYONE should be able to connect for as long as they like
(2 hour disconnects not withstanding). That is what Unlimited and unmetered
means..

Follow?


>Their ilk stay connected once connected, meaning others of their ilk
>can't connect, along with other people who just use it when required. Then
all those who can't connect complain, including those who will
> subsequently never ever disconnect if the opportunity got waived in their
> faces.
>
> Follow?

Do you really *believe* that??

And how, do tell, does one STOP Freeserve from disconnecting you after two
hours??

You can't!

*I* am one of the alleged *abusers* and I CANNOT EVER connect between 6pm
and midnight, and also at times during the day... There is no way in HELL
that I have been constantly online for "nearly 17 hours"... BUT Freeserve
give NO details as to when these alleged times have taken place!

Freeserve are DEPENDING upon people trying to blame the 700 for all their
ills... Those who are foolish enough to actually *believe* this are due for
a big shock on 6th Nov... (Unless, of course, Freeserve have their house in
order by then...)


--
Covenant.
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands

On 11-Oct-00 14:57:21, PhilCentral  spoke thus:
>"proteus" <proteus@hesperus.cjb.net> wrote
>> The abusers are the dishonest firms who advertise falsely, and you,
>> who abuses the English language.  *Abuse* for someone who stays online
>> 17 hours on an *unlimited* service? There are several words that
>> describe you, but the best is still *arsehole*.

>Why do you have to be so offensive?  The main people that Freeserve all
>calling abusers are those managing to clock up more than 24 hours use in 24
>hours 

...use more than 24 hours in 24 hours ? I'd call them magicians :)

-- 
Mike

"John Molineux" <nospam@molnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Az1F5.28193$uq5.575870@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> He doesn't, of course, mean the same person. He means, collectively, the
> group of people who make it their day's aim to milk free ISPs for all they
> are worth. Their ilk stay connected once connected, meaning others of
their
> ilk can't connect, along with other people who just use it when required.
> Then all those who can't connect complain, including those who will
> subsequently never ever disconnect if the opportunity got waived in their
> faces.
>
> Follow?

So kicking off 700 people will improve it for the 2000 per day they are
signing up?

Your thinking is off there.

Steve

Steve

"Blackhawk" <stuart@steel2479.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8s2a7e$8m9$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Actually you are wrong.

No - actually I am not!

I see what you are trying to say. But FS log files are going to say:

9.00am - 9.15 am -  Blackhawk uses ip xx.xx.xx.xx
9.00am - 9.15 am - Blackhawk uses ip yy.yy.yy.yy

You have only used their service from 9.00 to 9.15. 15 minutes. In total
it's 15 mins of use, it's 15 mins of simultaneous usage. Follow yet??? You
could say "I connected at 9 until 9.15 - I was on 15 mins", they would say,
"you were connected twice hence were on 30mins?"

You could say "But a 9.16 I had a power cut. I couldnt have used it for 30
mins."

What happens when the ONE connection is used to simultaneously download
multiple files?

9.00am - 9.15 am - Blackhawk ip xx.xx.xx.xx downloads programA
9.00am - 9.15 am - Blackhaws ip xx.xx.xx.xx also downloads programB

Did you manage 30 mins of downloading? No. Did you just download more in 15
mins? (Say each indivudual download would have taken 15 mins anyway)

It's the same logic I am applying here as above.

> 2 PC's connected to the same account for 10minutes = 20mins usage
according
> the the logs freeserve will have. Hence 24hours with 2 pc's connected to
the
> same account = 48hours usage.

No, the one account is just doing more in 10 minutes.

> Technically even if I had racked up 48hours in a day, there's nothing to
say
> I shouldn't have.

Only the laws of modern science...


John

Using Isdn I have 3 computers on my home network -  Mine, My sons and my
wifes very rarely at the same time -- but they will all have separate IP
address so each is clocked a separate even although they are only using one
line out.

This can be done easily with WIN98 and above using ICS

Macshuggie
"Peter Boulding" <pjb@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5u29us0eusqd68cmpdgrr7e83lm3prqscm@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:57:21 +0100, "PhilCentral"
> <spam@philcentral.co.uk> wrote - with fearless disregard for the
> possibility of a Godfrey amongst the 700:
>
> >The main people that Freeserve all
> >calling abusers are those managing to clock up more than 24 hours use in
24
> >hours - and these are the people to which I am referring.  For the
record -
> >if a company advertises 24/7 then I too believe thats what you get. But
> >there are always people that cheat the system - so - I am not on about
> >people that spend 17 hours a day on the net!
>
> Perhaps you could explain, Phil, how someone - using a system
> that requires CLI - clocks up more than 24 hours' use in 24
> hours; it would appear that you are aware of something that has
> so far eluded the rest of us - namely how Freeserve measured the
> 700's usage.
>
> --
> Regards
> Peter Boulding
> pjb@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
> BTi inanity at http://www.btinternet.com/~p.boulding/

On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:55:05 +0100, "MacShuggie"
<MacShuggieTAKE@AWAYhotmail.com> wrote:

>Using Isdn I have 3 computers on my home network -  Mine, My sons and my
>wifes very rarely at the same time -- but they will all have separate IP
>address so each is clocked a separate even although they are only using one
>line out.
>
>This can be done easily with WIN98 and above using ICS

I think you're miusunderstanding the technology.  ICS uses
network address translation so that all TCP/IP packets being sent
to the ISP are sent with a single source IP address.  The ISP
cannot detect that there are several computers sharing the same
dial-up link.

Regards, Mike.

-- 
Solaris on Intel: http://www.kempston.net/solaris/
PGP public key available by mail from pgp@kempston.net

"Blackhawk" <stuart@steel2479.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8s23ej$ar5$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Actually, I could easily have racked up 48hours use a day.

Yet , there are just 24hrs in a day....

> I'm on ISDN and can have 2 PC's logged into the same account at the same
> time, as can anyone else with ISDN.
>
> I *could* have, but didnt.

If I had a freeserve account, and connected with three PCs simultaneousely
through three phone lines for 5 minutes - have I actually been on for 15
minutes?

If I had 100 computers, on 100 phone lines, connected simultaneousely to
freeserve, and left it on for 5 mins, did I really use it for 500 minutes (8
and a half hours?)

I think not. I am just able to download the EQUIVALENT of 3 times, or 100x
what I would with one connection.
I hope this disctionction is clear, or I am going to have serious words with
my old Physics lecturers... ;)

> It's Freeserve's own fault for not disabling mulitple logins, and not
> expressly preventing them in the T&C's.

Yes it is. It would be more sensible to do this, than say "not use more than
24hrs in a 24hr day", which is silly. Anyway, Im just going to habe 2pts of
coke in my 1/5pt coke glass... but that's a high energy quantum physics
problem for you ;)

John

On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:36:17 +0100, proteus <proteus@hesperus.cjb.net>
wrote:
>The abusers are the dishonest firms who advertise falsely, and you,
>who abuses the English language.  *Abuse* for someone who stays online
>17 hours on an *unlimited* service? There are several words that
>describe you, but the best is still *arsehole*.
Getting rather tough with these *arseholes* aren't we, mind you has
always you are perfectly right .
Adam .

"Covenant" <covenant@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8s24pg$4q2$4@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "PhilCentral" <spam@philcentral.co.uk> wrote in message
>>The selfish minority are
>>chokeing each other.....one one hand they are staying connected all the
> time and on the other moaning when they cannot connect.
>
>
> Would you like to clarify how it is posible to stay on all the time, and
not
> connect?
>
> You , sir, are an ass.

He doesn't, of course, mean the same person. He means, collectively, the
group of people who make it their day's aim to milk free ISPs for all they
are worth. Their ilk stay connected once connected, meaning others of their
ilk can't connect, along with other people who just use it when required.
Then all those who can't connect complain, including those who will
subsequently never ever disconnect if the opportunity got waived in their
faces.

Follow?

John

On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 16:18:00 +0100, proteus <proteus@hesperus.cjb.net>
wrote:
>In which case I apologise. I would think Freeserve include those on 17
>hours a day, and much less, as abusers. I accept that you don't.  ;)
Has this debate not gone on for long enough there are those myself
included that say when you sign up for an advertised 24/7 connection
this is what we pay for and should have without being called abusers
and thieves . And there are those who say that  when you sign up for
an advertised 24/7 connection you should only connect for 5minutes out
of every 24 hours and the two sides will never agree .
I have been on line now since 9 am this morning and my telecoms
company is not calling me an abuser or a thief and never will .
Adam .

"Blackhawk" <stuart@steel2479.freeserve.co.uk> wrote

> Obviously you do not know what you are talking about, otherwise you would
> know it is impossible to stay idle on FSU because they kick you after 10
> minutes of inactivity.

Or perhaps I am that bit further up the internet ladder than I don't have to
use a modem?

I am not trying to offend people - or tell them how to use the internet -
but I have read the reports from Freeserve.....and I guess most of the
people flaming me have not.

--
Phil
www.philcentral.co.uk
Change spam -> phil to mail me.

Actually you are wrong.

2 PC's connected to the same account for 10minutes = 20mins usage according
the the logs freeserve will have. Hence 24hours with 2 pc's connected to the
same account = 48hours usage.

Freeserve disabled 128k access, which was mentioned in the T&C, yet they
didn't disable multiple logins, which ISN'T mentioned in the T&C.

Technically even if I had racked up 48hours in a day, there's nothing to say
I shouldn't have.

BH

John Molineux <nospam@molnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8t1F5.28162$uq5.575716@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> "Blackhawk" <stuart@steel2479.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:8s23ej$ar5$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Actually, I could easily have racked up 48hours use a day.
>
> Yet , there are just 24hrs in a day....
>
> > I'm on ISDN and can have 2 PC's logged into the same account at the same
> > time, as can anyone else with ISDN.
> >
> > I *could* have, but didnt.
>
> If I had a freeserve account, and connected with three PCs simultaneousely
> through three phone lines for 5 minutes - have I actually been on for 15
> minutes?
>
> If I had 100 computers, on 100 phone lines, connected simultaneousely to
> freeserve, and left it on for 5 mins, did I really use it for 500 minutes
(8
> and a half hours?)
>
> I think not. I am just able to download the EQUIVALENT of 3 times, or 100x
> what I would with one connection.
> I hope this disctionction is clear, or I am going to have serious words
with
> my old Physics lecturers... ;)
>
> > It's Freeserve's own fault for not disabling mulitple logins, and not
> > expressly preventing them in the T&C's.
>
> Yes it is. It would be more sensible to do this, than say "not use more
than
> 24hrs in a 24hr day", which is silly. Anyway, Im just going to habe 2pts
of
> coke in my 1/5pt coke glass... but that's a high energy quantum physics
> problem for you ;)
>
> John
>
>

I don't use a modem either.

What is your point?

BH

PhilCentral <spam@philcentral.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nD1F5.28220$uq5.576393@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> "Blackhawk" <stuart@steel2479.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
>
> > Obviously you do not know what you are talking about, otherwise you
would
> > know it is impossible to stay idle on FSU because they kick you after 10
> > minutes of inactivity.
>
> Or perhaps I am that bit further up the internet ladder than I don't have
to
> use a modem?
>
> I am not trying to offend people - or tell them how to use the internet -
> but I have read the reports from Freeserve.....and I guess most of the
> people flaming me have not.
>
> --
> Phil
> www.philcentral.co.uk
> Change spam -> phil to mail me.
>
>

On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:10:14 GMT, mike@kempston.net (Mike Mann)
wrote:

>>Using Isdn I have 3 computers on my home network -  Mine, My sons and my
>>wifes very rarely at the same time -- but they will all have separate IP
>>address so each is clocked a separate even although they are only using one
>>line out.
>>
>>This can be done easily with WIN98 and above using ICS
>
>I think you're miusunderstanding the technology.  ICS uses
>network address translation so that all TCP/IP packets being sent
>to the ISP are sent with a single source IP address.  The ISP
>cannot detect that there are several computers sharing the same
>dial-up link.

And more to the point, the max download (ignoring compression,
which is hardly relevant in this context) is 64K, regardless of
the number of connections made ... or 56K for those of us using
(V90) modems. It doesn't matter if we're running a home network,
or have several simultaneous server connections (multiple
instances of, for example, Agent - each downloading from a
different server).  

Not being an ISDN user, I don't know if it is possible to make
two 64K ISDN connections providing the same CLI - but if it is,
it's an obvious loophole that FS should, I would have thought,
have been able to block. 

-- 
Regards
Peter Boulding
pjb@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
BTi inanity at http://www.btinternet.com/~p.boulding/

I assume that this is a joke.

Otherwise you seriously need to watch what you say and avoid such sweeping
generalisations.

I am one of the FS700, and I do not spend my time online downloading illegal
software whilst stoned. I am a student, and most of my time online is spent
playing games or doing research.

I can't get dole money, as I am not currently looking for work.

BH

proteus <proteus@hesperus.cjb.net> wrote in message
news:ugb9us472pbulc54kbsn7mdhb6rb0c78qq@4ax.com...
> "John Molineux" <nospam@molnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >He means, collectively, the group of people who make it their day's
> > aim to milk free ISPs for all they are worth.
> >
> And I wouldn't be surprised if this tightly-knit group of people were
> downloading copyright software all the time, probably high on drugs,
> and most likely fiddling the dole. That's when they they're not on the
> terraces fighting. Makes you sick - no wonder the country's in the
> state it is.

Yes it is possible, and yes it is something that Freeserve could easily have
prevented (most ISP's do.)

It was however, neither prevented nor mentioned in the T&C's.

BH

Peter Boulding <pjb@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote in message
news:58d9usk1gtqafp6anpcm23dn7k5nvstl08@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 17:10:14 GMT, mike@kempston.net (Mike Mann)
> wrote:
>
> >>Using Isdn I have 3 computers on my home network -  Mine, My sons and my
> >>wifes very rarely at the same time -- but they will all have separate IP
> >>address so each is clocked a separate even although they are only using
one
> >>line out.
> >>
> >>This can be done easily with WIN98 and above using ICS
> >
> >I think you're miusunderstanding the technology.  ICS uses
> >network address translation so that all TCP/IP packets being sent
> >to the ISP are sent with a single source IP address.  The ISP
> >cannot detect that there are several computers sharing the same
> >dial-up link.
>
> And more to the point, the max download (ignoring compression,
> which is hardly relevant in this context) is 64K, regardless of
> the number of connections made ... or 56K for those of us using
> (V90) modems. It doesn't matter if we're running a home network,
> or have several simultaneous server connections (multiple
> instances of, for example, Agent - each downloading from a
> different server).
>
> Not being an ISDN user, I don't know if it is possible to make
> two 64K ISDN connections providing the same CLI - but if it is,
> it's an obvious loophole that FS should, I would have thought,
> have been able to block.
>
> --
> Regards
> Peter Boulding
> pjb@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
> BTi inanity at http://www.btinternet.com/~p.boulding/
>
>

On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:57:21 +0100, "PhilCentral"
<spam@philcentral.co.uk> wrote - with fearless disregard for the
possibility of a Godfrey amongst the 700:

>The main people that Freeserve all
>calling abusers are those managing to clock up more than 24 hours use in 24
>hours - and these are the people to which I am referring.  For the record -
>if a company advertises 24/7 then I too believe thats what you get. But
>there are always people that cheat the system - so - I am not on about
>people that spend 17 hours a day on the net!

Perhaps you could explain, Phil, how someone - using a system
that requires CLI - clocks up more than 24 hours' use in 24
hours; it would appear that you are aware of something that has
so far eluded the rest of us - namely how Freeserve measured the
700's usage.  

-- 
Regards
Peter Boulding
pjb@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
BTi inanity at http://www.btinternet.com/~p.boulding/

In freeserve.discuss, PhilCentral wrote:

> abusers are those managing to clock up more than 24 hours use in 24
>hours - 

.... "clock up more than 24 hours use in 24hours " .. Huh??

Abusers!!???????!! ..... more like feckin' magicians!!



Ronnie
=====

On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 16:57:38 +0100, "Blackhawk"
<stuart@steel2479.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>Try �300 +
>
Why?

-  
Michael

My highest was �575.
That was back in my 'bbs' days.
Phoning national numbers and the occasional BBS in Sweden.
Dang.

Previously, "Blackhawk" - <8s4mvq$76i$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk> said:

> Try �300 +
> 
> BH
> 
> <noone@home.just.yet> wrote in message
> news:mkjbus8h1hjk1g2o3t67c3tbefp6anrbft@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:32:04 GMT, philcentral@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > >In article <b0v6us87m0c3pjtf5pvo6b7vqfv8nlmsvf@4ax.com>,
> > >  A Truscott <truscott@newshunter.yi.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Some people in this labour controlled country of ours cannot afford to
> > >> throw ten pence away on useless ISP's like Freeserve never mind ten
> > >> pounds you sarcastic git .
> > >
> > >Surely the people that sign up for 24/7 internet are those whose bills
> > >were large before?  I did not say that people SHOULD waste any money -
> >
> > What makes you believe all the people who sign up for 24/7 internet
> > had large bills before?
> >
> > By the way what do you consider large ie: �10 �20 and so on?
> >
> > -
> > Michael
> 
> 
> 

<noone@home.just.yet> wrote in

> What makes you believe all the people who sign up for 24/7 internet
> had large bills before?
>
> By the way what do you consider large ie: �10 �20 and so on?

I may be wrong - but if peoples monthly internet bill was not / would not be
more than �10 a month then I would not have thought they would pay �10 a
month for 24/7

Just an assumption - I may well be wrong.

--
Phil
www.philcentral.co.uk
Change spam -> phil to mail me.

On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 17:57:49 +0100, "PhilCentral"
<spam@philcentral.co.uk> wrote:

><noone@home.just.yet> wrote in
>
>> What makes you believe all the people who sign up for 24/7 internet
>> had large bills before?
>>
>> By the way what do you consider large ie: �10 �20 and so on?
>
>I may be wrong - but if peoples monthly internet bill was not / would not be
>more than �10 a month then I would not have thought they would pay �10 a
>month for 24/7
>
>Just an assumption - I may well be wrong.

I believe your statement that all the people who signed up to 24/7,
your statement: (( Surely the people that sign up for 24/7 internet
are those whose bills were large before? )) May well be incorrect

IMHO some people who had internet bills of around �10 may very well
have joined 24/7 because they would have the added freedom to connect
at anytime "Well perhaps not at the moment ;)" without worrying about
the cost of the call, and don't forget the people who's first ISP was
Freeserve and who's bills where �0.

-  
Michael

In article <8rvmvt$mmq$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, La Grief  said....
> 
> Ian Harris <i.c.harris@my_underpantscwc.net> wrote in message
> news:UXEE5.2287$IR4.3852@news1-hme0...
> |
> | proteus <proteus@hesperus.cjb.net> wrote:
> |
> | The net would be a better place if people paid for it.
> 
> No, the net would be a better place if companies would get off of their arses and
> were able to supply a line for every household in england at an affordable price.

Only England.. what about the rest of the UK??

Rob

On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 08:02:59 +0100, proteus <proteus@hesperus.cjb.net>
wrote:

>noone@home.just.yet wrote:
>
><snipped>
>>>Makes you sick - no wonder the country's in the
>>>state it is.
>>
>>This could be a joke. 
>>Or you could be an idiot.
>>
>>Which is it?
>>
>Read my other posts and go figure. If you're not an idiot. ;)

I shall forego the pleasure of reading your earlier posts because i
get bored easily ;)

So which was it.

-  
Michael

In article <b0v6us87m0c3pjtf5pvo6b7vqfv8nlmsvf@4ax.com>,
  A Truscott <truscott@newshunter.yi.org> wrote:

> Some people in this labour controlled country of ours cannot afford to
> throw ten pence away on useless ISP's like Freeserve never mind ten
> pounds you sarcastic git .

Surely the people that sign up for 24/7 internet are those whose bills
were large before?  I did not say that people SHOULD waste any money -
but people should cancel their account if it is no good, and use up all
the phone calls and they have not lost anything!!

> Now FOAD .

How mature.

Phil


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

>>> Now FOAD .
>>> 
>> How mature. 
>> Phil

Yes, let's all Fantasise Over A Donkey.
I'm game.

On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:32:04 GMT, philcentral@my-deja.com wrote:

>In article <b0v6us87m0c3pjtf5pvo6b7vqfv8nlmsvf@4ax.com>,
>  A Truscott <truscott@newshunter.yi.org> wrote:
>
>> Some people in this labour controlled country of ours cannot afford to
>> throw ten pence away on useless ISP's like Freeserve never mind ten
>> pounds you sarcastic git .
>
>Surely the people that sign up for 24/7 internet are those whose bills
>were large before?  I did not say that people SHOULD waste any money -

What makes you believe all the people who sign up for 24/7 internet
had large bills before?

By the way what do you consider large ie: �10 �20 and so on?

-  
Michael

Try �300 +

BH

<noone@home.just.yet> wrote in message
news:mkjbus8h1hjk1g2o3t67c3tbefp6anrbft@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:32:04 GMT, philcentral@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >In article <b0v6us87m0c3pjtf5pvo6b7vqfv8nlmsvf@4ax.com>,
> >  A Truscott <truscott@newshunter.yi.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Some people in this labour controlled country of ours cannot afford to
> >> throw ten pence away on useless ISP's like Freeserve never mind ten
> >> pounds you sarcastic git .
> >
> >Surely the people that sign up for 24/7 internet are those whose bills
> >were large before?  I did not say that people SHOULD waste any money -
>
> What makes you believe all the people who sign up for 24/7 internet
> had large bills before?
>
> By the way what do you consider large ie: �10 �20 and so on?
>
> -
> Michael

"Steve Peake" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
news:TV5F5.11704$d4.986220@nnrp4.clara.net...

>
> So kicking off 700 people will improve it for the 2000 per day they are
> signing up?

It's not my argument. It's freeserve's. I don't know why they chose the 700,
It could be, for all I know, quite random. After all, the company's biggest
mistake was offering the deal. I don't know how they could possibly afford
it. Short of owning the lines, the bandwidth and not having to pay any other
telco anything ever - their bills are going to be too much - as is now
clear. They didnt expect 24/7 - and they cant afford true 24/7.

> Your thinking is off there.

No, my thinking is quite correct. From an "outsiders" viewpoint,
untarnished. I am not saying, though, whether freeserve is correct or not. I
have never used freeserve so I cant comment.

John

MacShuggie wrote:

> Using Isdn I have 3 computers on my home network -  Mine, My sons and my
> wifes very rarely at the same time -- but they will all have separate IP
> address so each is clocked a separate even although they are only using one
> line out.
>
> This can be done easily with WIN98 and above using ICS

Doh!!! ICS uses only 1 line - therefore 1 connection. 3 people on 24 hours
would not rack up 72 hours of freeserve time, just 24.

>
>
> Macshuggie
> "Peter Boulding" <pjb@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:5u29us0eusqd68cmpdgrr7e83lm3prqscm@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:57:21 +0100, "PhilCentral"
> > <spam@philcentral.co.uk> wrote - with fearless disregard for the
> > possibility of a Godfrey amongst the 700:
> >
> > >The main people that Freeserve all
> > >calling abusers are those managing to clock up more than 24 hours use in
> 24
> > >hours - and these are the people to which I am referring.  For the
> record -
> > >if a company advertises 24/7 then I too believe thats what you get. But
> > >there are always people that cheat the system - so - I am not on about
> > >people that spend 17 hours a day on the net!
> >
> > Perhaps you could explain, Phil, how someone - using a system
> > that requires CLI - clocks up more than 24 hours' use in 24
> > hours; it would appear that you are aware of something that has
> > so far eluded the rest of us - namely how Freeserve measured the
> > 700's usage.
> >
> > --
> > Regards
> > Peter Boulding
> > pjb@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
> > BTi inanity at http://www.btinternet.com/~p.boulding/

--
Patrick

Of course I don't look busy - I done it right the first time.

On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 19:20:25 +0100, proteus <proteus@hesperus.cjb.net>
wrote:

>"John Molineux" <nospam@molnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>He means, collectively, the group of people who make it their day's
>> aim to milk free ISPs for all they are worth.
>>
>And I wouldn't be surprised if this tightly-knit group of people were
>downloading copyright software all the time, probably high on drugs,
>and most likely fiddling the dole. That's when they they're not on the
>terraces fighting. Makes you sick - no wonder the country's in the
>state it is.

This could be a joke. 
Or you could be an idiot.

Which is it?

-  
Michael

On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 15:57:21 +0100, "PhilCentral"
<spam@philcentral.co.uk> wrote:

>"proteus" <proteus@hesperus.cjb.net> wrote
>
>> The abusers are the dishonest firms who advertise falsely, and you,
>> who abuses the English language.  *Abuse* for someone who stays online
>> 17 hours on an *unlimited* service? There are several words that
>> describe you, but the best is still *arsehole*.
>
>Why do you have to be so offensive?  The main people that Freeserve all
>calling abusers are those managing to clock up more than 24 hours use in 24
>hours - and these are the people to which I am referring.  For the record -

Freeserve have stated they are terminating users accounts who have
been connected to the network for an average of nearly 17 hours each
day, everyday.

As you should plainly see, Well i hope you can, that those who maybe
using the network for over 24 hour in a day are not the main people
Freeserve are calling abusers, because those who use the network for
nearly 17 hours a day are getting the same as those who use it for
over 24 hour a day, ie: both are having their accounts terminated.

Or are you saying Freeserve are so incompetent that they just can't
tell the difference between someone using the network for over 24
hours a day and those using it for nearly 17 hours a day and that's
why both are having their accounts terminated?

There is another possibility that you're just full of it.

-  
Michael

That sounds very interesting - do you have a web address or phone number for
Homechoice ??

Thanks

Tony


"Victor Chong" <victor76@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8s6j5a$q15$1@starburst.uk.insnet.net...
> Try Homechoice - the TV thingy...
>
> You get ADSL based technology, to connect to the internet, at speeds of up
> to 115kbps, and it has a contention ratio of 1:3. All  for �20 per month!
>
> Just had mine installed yesterday - very pleased with it.
>
> "Patrick Doherty" <my_spamtrap@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:39E33129.D4B86711@yahoo.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > PhilCentral wrote:
> >
> > > "Adrian Sims" <aaa@nospam.com> wrote
> > >
> > > > Freeserve unlimited is a pay-for service - it costs  10 quid per
> > > > month. Would you call people who use BTs ADSL abusers just because
> > > > they are always on? Freeserve unlimited users expected to be able to
> > > > use a service that was always available.
> > >
> > > No - because ADSL has one 'modem' per customer.  Therefore staying on
> all
> > > the time does not stop other people getting on.  The selfish minority
> are
> > > chokeing each other.....one one hand they are staying connected all
the
> time
> > > and on the other moaning when they cannot connect.
> >
> > And where did you get this snippet of tosh. At current projections ADSL
is
> > likely to have a contention of 10:1 not 1:1.
> >
> > If you want 1:1 you need a leased line.
> >
> > --
> > Patrick
> >
> > Of course I don't look busy - I done it right the first time.
> >
> >
>
>

Try Homechoice - the TV thingy...

You get ADSL based technology, to connect to the internet, at speeds of up
to 115kbps, and it has a contention ratio of 1:3. All  for �20 per month!

Just had mine installed yesterday - very pleased with it.

"Patrick Doherty" <my_spamtrap@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:39E33129.D4B86711@yahoo.co.uk...
>
>
> PhilCentral wrote:
>
> > "Adrian Sims" <aaa@nospam.com> wrote
> >
> > > Freeserve unlimited is a pay-for service - it costs  10 quid per
> > > month. Would you call people who use BTs ADSL abusers just because
> > > they are always on? Freeserve unlimited users expected to be able to
> > > use a service that was always available.
> >
> > No - because ADSL has one 'modem' per customer.  Therefore staying on
all
> > the time does not stop other people getting on.  The selfish minority
are
> > chokeing each other.....one one hand they are staying connected all the
time
> > and on the other moaning when they cannot connect.
>
> And where did you get this snippet of tosh. At current projections ADSL is
> likely to have a contention of 10:1 not 1:1.
>
> If you want 1:1 you need a leased line.
>
> --
> Patrick
>
> Of course I don't look busy - I done it right the first time.
>
>

"PhilCentral" <spam@philcentral.co.uk> wrote in message
news:971192201.552025@red.gradwell.net...
> "Patrick Doherty" <my_spamtrap@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>
> > > No - because ADSL has one 'modem' per customer.  Therefore staying on
> all
> > > the time does not stop other people getting on.  The selfish minority
> are
> > > chokeing each other.....one one hand they are staying connected all
the
> time
> > > and on the other moaning when they cannot connect.
> >
> > And where did you get this snippet of tosh. At current projections ADSL
is
> > likely to have a contention of 10:1 not 1:1.
> >
> > If you want 1:1 you need a leased line.
>
> Can't you read or are you just stupid?  What-ever the bandwidth you get
you
> can have a permanent connection by ADSL without stopping other users!

But throwing off the 700 users who use more than 17 hours a day isn't going
to impove anything as they will still be on at peak hours which is when
freeserve have the problems anyway..BTW with the offpeak package you are
explicitly allowed to be on for 16.5 hours a day.go figure

    Simon

"Vicky and Tony"
<vickyandtony@STICK_YOUR_SPAM_UP_YOUR_ARSE_theloonybin.fsbusiness.co.uk>
wrote in message news:8rvofh$nsg$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Andrew Kressman" <andrew@kressman.co.uk> wrote in message
> > The "backstroke" is actually a forward slash.
>
> Oops :-)
>
> > It's the divide symbol in
> > computing terms.  24 divided by 7 is 3.43 hours - that's how long you
can
> > stay on maximum per day without getting chucked off  :)
>
> That sounds very appropriate!

don't laugh I'm one of the 700 but I only got the service has been connected
email that morning and only connected a 15:00 I got the disconnection emial
at 17:00 the same day

    Simon

In alt.internet.providers.uk, "Covenant" <covenant@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> writes:

> THIS means that EVERYONE should be able to connect for as long as they like
> (2 hour disconnects not withstanding). That is what Unlimited and unmetered
> means..

If it is *unmetered* then how can they throw you off after 2 hours? 
Unmetered means that they are not metering (measuring/recording) your
access. If they are throwing people off after two hours then they must
be metering the access.

"Steven Cowie" <scooterboy@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:sUDG5.1120$G_5.5630@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:13:15 +0100, "Covenant"
> <covenant@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
snp
> to perhaps get the advertising changed indeed, but to get the service
> changed I doubt it.. bottom line you cant force em to implement it no
> more than you can force em to maintain a service losing money hand
> over fist

Exactly don't advertise a service you are unwilling or unable to supply (ISP
seem very bad at this)
>
> as the sort of unrealistic 1:1 contention ratios a lot of complainers
> seem to expect freserve to provide would bankrupt em PDQ I'd imagine
> they would sooner withdraw the service completely than yeild

Yep but I can see no reason not to have 3 tariffs, Off peak, limited but
free at all times and unlimited all of them priced sensibly
>
> Forcing them into that sort of corner where closure is cheaper than
> compliance strikes me as biting off your nose to spite your face

Agreed. I just don't like to being lied to

    Simon

"Stephen Carter" <steve@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
news:39ea0b7e.50067941@localhost...
> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:12:17 +0100, "Simon"
> <simon@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
snp
> All of the other recipients of the FS700 letter that I've
> read about have cases that if argued would only serve to
> make lawyers richer.
>
> In your case I'd urge you to go see your local Trading
> Standards folk - the points FS have made to you are
> manifestly incorrect!  If they (FS) argue the point, hit
> them with Data Protection errors!  Good Luck

According to freeserve I still get chucked because I average more than 17
hours a day for that month on the normal dial-up

    Simon

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 21:59:09 +0100, "Simon"
<simon@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>According to freeserve I still get chucked because I average more than 17
>hours a day for that month on the normal dial-up

Huh?

Whilst it's probably a reasonable assumption that someone who uses 17+
hours per day when they are paying for the calls is likely to use an
unmetered service at least that much, this begs further questions...

Are they kicking for *potential* "abuse" as well as *actual* "abuse"?
If so, surely *all* customers are *potential* abusers?

Alternatively, is your usage of the 0845 number also deemed as
"abuse"?  After all, you would have been making the same demands on
their bandwidth and preventing other users from accessing a modem.  In
fact, this is *worse* as there is no 2 hour cutoff?

Is this discrimination against their own customers?  If someone who
had previously used (say) TescoNet for 17 hours a day, applied to join
Freeserve Unlimited Time, they would be OK because Freeserve would be
unaware of this "abuse".

Unbelievable.....






-- 
Gareth Kitchener
Bedfordshire, England.
http://www.garethkitchener.com

"Graham Murray" <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote in message
news:m2lmvq16uk.fsf@barnowl.demon.co.uk...
> In alt.internet.providers.uk, "Covenant"
<covenant@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
> > THIS means that EVERYONE should be able to connect for as long as they
like
> > (2 hour disconnects not withstanding). That is what Unlimited and
unmetered
> > means..
>
> If it is *unmetered* then how can they throw you off after 2 hours?
> Unmetered means that they are not metering (measuring/recording) your
> access. If they are throwing people off after two hours then they must
> be metering the access.



Precisely...
So therefore, their terms and advertising are pure nonsense!

And the quicker *everyone* complains about it, the better!


--
Covenant.
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands

"Paul C" <meagain36fire@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p3blusogp4vdcs2pbu8bcnj1m53cv1g997@4ax.com...
> On 15 Oct 2000 15:06:59 +0000, in
> <m2lmvq16uk.fsf@barnowl.demon.co.uk>, Graham Murray wrote
>
> >If it is *unmetered* then how can they throw you off after 2 hours?
> >Unmetered means that they are not metering (measuring/recording) your
> >access. If they are throwing people off after two hours then they must
> >be metering the access.
>
> My understandig of an "unmetered" ISP is that the charges aren't time
> based.
>


And MY understanding of Unlimited is, without limit.

We agree on both terminologies...

Freeserve, however, have created their *own* meanings for the words.

Unmetered... (FU definition; Charges ARE time based. Your time is limited
for the price you pay.)

Unlimited... (FU definition; Limited to however long we decide. but we
shan't *tell* you what that time period is...(And we'll probably chnage it
from time to time...Thanks for your money...Bye!)


--
Covenant.
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands

Covenant wrote::
Re: Is freeserve some kind of sick joke ??


A resounding: "NO" !!!
-- 
Search Newsgroups For All The Villains You Choose:
http://www.wysiwyg-webdesign.com/dejainfo.html
Extracts from "A Longtime Creeping":
http://www.wysiwyg-webdesign.com/poems/

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 14:13:15 +0100, "Covenant"
<covenant@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> 
> "Graham Murray" <newspost@gmurray.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:m2lmvq16uk.fsf@barnowl.demon.co.uk...
> > In alt.internet.providers.uk, "Covenant"
> <covenant@joelamb.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> >
> > > THIS means that EVERYONE should be able to connect for as long as they
> like
> > > (2 hour disconnects not withstanding). That is what Unlimited and
> unmetered
> > > means..
> >
> > If it is *unmetered* then how can they throw you off after 2 hours?
> > Unmetered means that they are not metering (measuring/recording) your
> > access. If they are throwing people off after two hours then they must
> > be metering the access.
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely...
> So therefore, their terms and advertising are pure nonsense!
> 
> And the quicker *everyone* complains about it, the better!

to perhaps get the advertising changed indeed, but to get the service
changed I doubt it.. bottom line you cant force em to implement it no
more than you can force em to maintain a service losing money hand
over fist 

as the sort of unrealistic 1:1 contention ratios a lot of complainers
seem to expect freserve to provide would bankrupt em PDQ I'd imagine
they would sooner withdraw the service completely than yeild 

Forcing them into that sort of corner where closure is cheaper than
compliance strikes me as biting off your nose to spite your face

steven C

On 15 Oct 2000 15:06:59 +0000, in
<m2lmvq16uk.fsf@barnowl.demon.co.uk>, Graham Murray wrote 

>If it is *unmetered* then how can they throw you off after 2 hours? 
>Unmetered means that they are not metering (measuring/recording) your
>access. If they are throwing people off after two hours then they must
>be metering the access.

My understandig of an "unmetered" ISP is that the charges aren't time
based.

Paul

-- 
email: meagain36fire@hotmail.com
Put out the fire to email me :-)

On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:12:17 +0100, "Simon"
<simon@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Vicky and Tony"
><vickyandtony@STICK_YOUR_SPAM_UP_YOUR_ARSE_theloonybin.fsbusiness.co.uk>
>wrote in message news:8rvofh$nsg$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> "Andrew Kressman" <andrew@kressman.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > The "backstroke" is actually a forward slash.
>>
>> Oops :-)
>>
>> > It's the divide symbol in
>> > computing terms.  24 divided by 7 is 3.43 hours - that's how long you
>can
>> > stay on maximum per day without getting chucked off  :)
>>
>> That sounds very appropriate!
>
>don't laugh I'm one of the 700 but I only got the service has been connected
>email that morning and only connected a 15:00 I got the disconnection emial
>at 17:00 the same day

All of the other recipients of the FS700 letter that I've
read about have cases that if argued would only serve to
make lawyers richer.

In your case I'd urge you to go see your local Trading
Standards folk - the points FS have made to you are
manifestly incorrect!  If they (FS) argue the point, hit
them with Data Protection errors!  Good Luck


-- 
steve@stephencarterNOSPAM.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!

"Jonathan" <newsmaster@WYSIWYG-WEBDESIGN.COM> wrote in message
news:u41muscttrdrkf99qv7ds0r6hpskscrrvl@4ax.com...
> Covenant wrote::
> Re: Is freeserve some kind of sick joke ??
>
>
> A resounding: "NO" !!!



Just FYI...

I didn't write the above at all...
that said...

Freeserve *is* a joke however... It just isn't funny...

--
Covenant.
A Man With Far Too Much Time On His Hands

On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 21:59:09 +0100, "Simon"
<simon@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"Stephen Carter" <steve@[127.0.0.1]> wrote in message
>news:39ea0b7e.50067941@localhost...
>> On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 01:12:17 +0100, "Simon"
>> <simon@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>snp
>> All of the other recipients of the FS700 letter that I've
>> read about have cases that if argued would only serve to
>> make lawyers richer.
>>
>> In your case I'd urge you to go see your local Trading
>> Standards folk - the points FS have made to you are
>> manifestly incorrect!  If they (FS) argue the point, hit
>> them with Data Protection errors!  Good Luck
>
>According to freeserve I still get chucked because I average more than 17
>hours a day for that month on the normal dial-up

Odder & Odder!

They are dumping you from the Unlimited service because you
used 'too much' of the paid for service that actually
generates them revenue.

I really need to think that one through! 



-- 
steve@stephencarterNOSPAM.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!

"Gareth Kitchener" <gjk@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:bvqmus4b5ekca642df9ndo8ur1eqekukcr@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 21:59:09 +0100, "Simon"
> <simon@unikey.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >According to freeserve I still get chucked because I average more than 17
> >hours a day for that month on the normal dial-up
>
> Huh?
>
> Whilst it's probably a reasonable assumption that someone who uses 17+
> hours per day when they are paying for the calls is likely to use an
> unmetered service at least that much, this begs further questions...
>
> Are they kicking for *potential* "abuse" as well as *actual* "abuse"?
> If so, surely *all* customers are *potential* abusers?
>
> Alternatively, is your usage of the 0845 number also deemed as
> "abuse"?  After all, you would have been making the same demands on
> their bandwidth and preventing other users from accessing a modem.  In
> fact, this is *worse* as there is no 2 hour cutoff?

I have been told by FS that the reason they kicked my UL account was the
usage on the 0845 no. butthat I am free to continue using the 0845 no. after
november the 6th and am free (as are the rest of the 700) to re apply for
the UL service.
I'm currently trying the line that as they knew what my usage was when they
signed me up to UL it can't have been Abusive, Abnormal or Excessive

    Simon

I thought you only looked for lusers ;-)
  Did you like Wetherby ?

Allen

King Queen wrote:
> 
> I had a job interview with Energis-Squared today. (well, with their
> recruitment consultants.) Perhaps in the light of this it's as well
> that I didn't get it, particularly as I wanted to work in user support
>