🚀 go-pugleaf

We All understand what your trying to say - But, In A
Nut-Shell ... In the End, Even you are admiting to the
Scam Sympatico is trying to pull on it's clients ..

 "First of all, there are lots of people who would benefit
from high-speed access.  While the system is not is not
currently totally congested, it is running near capacity
so that new users cannot be signed up as it is without
risking bad congestion."

Without actually using any words that actually say "Scam"
You are even saying that "futur" and "current" clients are
being/or about to be ripped off.

The only actual difference between what you are saying
here, and what I've been saying all along, is the type of
English we speak.

And No - We are not even remotely close to being over
Congested. If we were, Sympatico wouldent be spending
so hard to attract new clients. New Competition wouldent
be able to offer start ups. http://www.istop.com/ and
http://www.dsl.ca/ , and more.

And - If you read Saturdays Gazette, you'll quickly find
out that "Mamma Bell" and Other Companies are about
to do Battle - To reduce the cost for Competion to be
able to compete.

And - Why Isn't Sympatico Advertising on it's latest
Batch of cheesy commercial's - the cap? they are still
using the "UNLIMITED" Slogan, without any details?

Dude - I see why you are fighting so hard - but wake up
Friend. Moral's do not apply when it's a business matter,
and this is not my choice - it's there's. I'm just Fighting
Back - So these Pricks don't screw my Kids in the
futur. But, you have to take a stand now, or forever be
a Butt-Puppet to the Money Gods.

If I pulled the wool in front of my clients eye's, in time,
I would be caught - and closed down. And, in the end,
You always get caught. Just look at the political circle
in Canada at the moment.


"Calvin Ostrum" <calvin_ostrum@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:39080a20.0205251418.160a09d9@posting.google.com...
> In <3CEFF741.CDF6D000@sympatico.ca>
>    Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
> | The service agreement does provide for changes in its terms, but "the
> | service" is "unlimited access to the Internet".
>
> How is it that you get to exclude the nature of the access,
> (for example, exactly what is meant by "unlimited") from the
> "terms" of the agreement?  What, for the nth time, makes you
> think that Sympatico is *required* to provide to you *forever*
> until you die precisely the same kind of access they have
> offered you up until now?  Is there some legal issue here?
> Or has Sympatico sold its soul to you with this service
> agreement?
>
> | Give your head a shake. They offered a service that caused a lot of
people
> | to abandon the competition's dialup services. Having reduced the number
of
> | competitors in the field, they now want to cut back on the service and
> | increase the number of users of the system that they claim that we users
> | have overloaded.
>
> The people who abandoned dialup can go back to it if they want.  Or
> they can choose many other ADSL providers or Rogers.  Of course,
> many of those other ADSL providers already have caps and Rogers is
> apparently planning a cap.
>
> | I beg your pardon, but they are still advertising unlimited access, and
it
> | would seem obvious that they are doing that in order to expand the
number
> | of users of their service.
>
> This is one complaint you have that I do agree with (insofar
> as it is true -- I haven't checked their pages recently).  If their
> decision to switch to a cap is a done deal, even if the service they
> are offering now will not be capped for a few months, they should be
> telling prospective new users about it.
>
> | This is the same service that they claim is
> | being slowed down by excessive use.
>
> Where do they claim this?  Exactly what do they claim?
>
> | Yet, they continue to try to attract
> | more users to their supposedly overloaded system.  The other possibility
> | is that it is adequate for the number of users they have now, but that
> | they are planning on converting hundreds of thousands of people over to
> | their system.  With each of them paying the higher rates, it's all gravy
> | for them.
>
> Can't you figure out any other possible explanation for this?
> I don't have all the facts myself, but I can imagine other
> explanations.  Have you actually got evidence to rule out
> this possible explanation:
>
> First of all, there are lots of people who would benefit
> from high-speed access.  While the system is not is not
> currently totally congested, it is running near capacity
> so that new users cannot be signed up as it is without
> risking bad congestion.  Either people's usage has to be
> reduced in some way, and/or money has to be raised to be
> able to increase the bandwidth (and this bandwidth increase,
> over time, has to extend to all parts of the internet and
> not just the part Sympatico can build) Money can be raised,
> of course, by signing up new users.  But it can also be
> raised by charging those who use more bandwidth to pay
> for that bandwidth.  Perhaps not enough money can be
> raised from new users, especially when many of those new
> users  will not be using a huge amount of bandwidth and
> thus don't see it as worth switching if they cannot get
> a package which suits them but instead have to pay the
> same as very heavy users.  Given that bandwidth is a scare
> commodity, it makes sense that (aside from the existence of
> special needs) people should pay for the amount of it that they
> take.  And that is essentially what is being proposed now.
>
> It generally  doesn't make sense to give away a scare
> commodity for free, unless perhaps one can figure out
> some kind  of rationing scheme to avoid using prices.  If
> people have to pay for their bandwidth, they will use it
> more rationally.  That is what Hal Varian's research, which
> I have brought up before and which has been ignored by
> all the entitlement ranters, showed.  It showed that
> when there were small prices put on incremental increases
> in use, people used a lot less.  They don't derive as
> much utility from that excess use that others would
> derive if they were allowed to get on and use that
> portion of the bandwidth instead.  There are problems
> applying this somewhat old research to the current
> day, but at least it illustrates the principle.  It
> shows that charging for amount used can be good public
> policy, in just the same sort of way, for example, that
> a progressive taxation scheme can be good public
> policy.
>
> | > The destruction here might be averted by raising the
> | > cost on everyone.  But this, as I said, is not fair,
> | > (even if it works, which it may not, since the light users
> | > which subsidize the heavy users may be driven away).
> | > One should be able to get a limited plan where one gets
> | > less access for a lower price.  You claimed one could, and
> | > I pointed out this was not the case.  If one wants
> | > high-speed access, there is only the one choice.
> |
> | I believe I said that dialup services offered different packages. There
>
> No, you did not.  You did not explicitly restrict your
> statement to dialup services.  You said:
>
> | If you are not using the net much, you can buy more limited plans.
Planning to
> | spend more time on the net, I opted for the unlimited access offered by
> | Sympatico. ...
>
> This is just plain nonsense, of course.  You can spend as much
> time as you want on the net (in terms of time sitting in
> front of the machine) with unlimited dialup plans *and* with
> the current Sympatico HSE.  And if you are not using the net
> much, you may still want to use it in a high-speed mode.  Probably
> even more so; if you are using the net a lot, you can for example
> read some web pages while others are downloading.  If you don't
> use it much, preferring to do other things, you may want to get
> on, download the pages fast, and not waste time sitting around.
> The issue of the desirability of high-speed is separable from
> both how much time you want to spend on the net and also how much
> total downloading you want to do.  But you don't even bother to
> separate these, and apparently insist on just telling those who
> want high-speed, but are not "using the net" as much as you, to be
> happy using only a slow dial-up line.   And you apparently don't
> even see what you are doing here.
>
> I give up!  I find the idea of network pricing schemes
> quite interesting, and would like to see some rational
> discussion of it, but I don't think we will be seeing
> such a thing here...  anyone who knows of some good
> elementary references on this subject though, please
> let me know.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Calvin Ostrum                                        cbo@interlog.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>  To say altruism and morality are possible in virtue of something
>  basic to human nature is not to say that men are basically good.
>  Men are basically complicated; how good they are depends on whether
>  certain conceptions and ways of thinking have achieved dominance, a
>  dominance which is precarious in any case.  The manner in which
>  human beings have conducted themselves so far does not encourage
>  optimism about the moral future of the species.
>       -- Thomas Nagel, "The possibility of altruism"
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------