🚀 go-pugleaf

"D. Cartwright" <dcartwri@Express.CA> writes:

>What I mean is that they are starting to undertake the same policies 
>that ID has done.  Cutting off customers, false advertising etc. Now 

	So I was indeed incorrect, you meant exactly what you posted. Given
the spate of posts by happy customers from that way I had assumed you were
another.
... 
 
>that had everyone at ID upset. Also one of the reasons I joined 
>another ISP.  I wanted to know how the industry as a whole was 
>conducting themselves with regards to their advertising policies.  I 
>think we have a problem in the industry that needs some contols 
>placed on it
	
	I wouldn't agree that the whole industry has a problem. The various
providers implying in their ads that they are giving you something for nothing
(or lots for very little, which amounts to the same thing) have a problem. 
The customers that believe their story may also have a problem (if a thing
seems to be too good to be true it probably is). It costs a lot to run an 
ISP. I think at this point that we have a couple of existance proofs that 
"unlimited" Internet access for $20 per month is one of those things that
is too good to be true. I will also be the first to admit that it is not
necessarily obvious that this is too good to be true unless you have read
the various posts detailing the costs and tradeoffs of being an ISP (i.e.
low prices, "unlimited access" means lots of busy signals due to high 
account to phone line ratios and/or "unlimited" not being unlimited. There
are a number of providers around that believe in charging the customer for
what they use (which of course drives the heavy users to the "unlimited"
places ...).