🚀 go-pugleaf

Say What You Want - Debate What You Want.
It's Past Boring,
Fact Is UNLIMITED is UNLIMITED Period.
The Public Are Dropping Sympatico.
Computer Stores And Techs Are Recommending Other
Alternatives, And It Won't Stop.

Sympatico Is Officially Blackballed.
Other Services Are Entering The Market. Even If Not
All Are Cheaper - At Least They Are Honest.

The People Are Fed Up Of Being Lied To.
If They Wanted To Be Lied To - Or Mis-Lead, They
Would Be Watching Our Politics Instead.

Good Bye - Good Luck - See Ya!
I'm Being Connected To Videotron In 4 Days.
Clients Walking Into my Store, Are Doing The Same -
And, That's Even Without My Advice.

If You Want To Encourage Your Friends And Family
To Follow Sympatico's Lead - That's Your Option.

My Job - Is To Provide My Clients With The Best
Possible Advice And The Best Possible Service I
Can Offer. If You Disagree - Your Choice.

But Sympatico Will Soon Be Dead. Bullshit And Small
Print Is Only Good - Untill It Uncovered.

Enjoy.

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:59ZI8.136787$Po6.299115@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> In article <ad0qod$112$2@dns3.cae.ca>, Richard wrote:
> >
> > "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> In article <acghr1$n7g$3@dns3.cae.ca>, Richard wrote:
>
> >> It has little to do with wether it's commerical or non-commerical. It's
> >> about the amount of bandwidth being used. If a neigbor started running
a
> >> free porn site or something sucking all the bandwidth out of the cable
> >> modem system in the area I would expect that he get booted off. I
should
> >> have crawling speeds so he can set up a high bandwidth server?
>
> > No, bandwidth is _not_ the issue. We've already been over this. If you
> > provide unlimited DSL access on a line capable of 1.2 Mbps downloads,
and do
> > not specify any quotas ahead of time, then implicitly you're setting the
> > quota in the range of 300 GB/month. Approximately the amount you'd get
if
> > you left your system d/ling at top speed all month long.
>
> > By talking about cable, you're comparing apples and oranges. The
difference
> > is in the technology.
>
> I understand the difference. However at some point, even DSL users must
> share. The difference is that a bunch of cable users share the same small
> line, each DSL user has his own small line. But all the DSL users in the
> same area on the same provider take bandwidth from the same feed to the
> provider. This is the same, regardless if it's cable, dialup, or DSL.
>
> The question is what do when the flat rate times all the customers
> doesn't cover the bandwidth being used up? That the average consumption
> has out-grown the price being charged? What if analysis shows that say
> 5% of the customers are skewing the average upwards beyond the profitable
> level?
>
> > Bell already charges 150% of what other DSL ISP's in the area charge.
The
> > servces they provide and customer service are grossly inferior. There
are
> > only two reasons that Sympatico has a customer base at all:
>
> Why don't the heavy consumers of bandwidth just go elsewhere then?
>
> > So if I'm reading into this correctly, since Chicago ISPs have already
> > screwed you over, you have next to no sympathy for the people up here
> > getting screwed over by one of the bigger ISPs right now?
>
> I simply understand why they are doing it. I don't like it, because I
> would like to run some small servers over DSL or cable. So small they
> wouldn't bother anyone.
>
> I wouldn't think of running high bandwidth servers on a home service.
> However, it is people who do push the limits, taking as much as they can
> consume that results in the blanket no-server policies providers here
> have. Even the hosting service I have my MUD running on forbids heavy
> bandwidth consumption on the orders that are being discussed here. Of
> course I can run small servers over the cable modem, nobody would notice,
> but it's still a violation of the service agreement.