🚀 go-pugleaf

Unlimited is Unlimited
- That was the selling Point - Period.

Forget the babble - and stick with the facts. We are not
talking about an inexperienced company here, that bit off
more than it can chew. We are talking about a very well
oiled and organized machine - Sympatico and Bell.

Yes- Bandwith is shared - So is Air. What's your point.
If they can't "Upgrade" to the amount of business they
can handle - they should just get out.

And - Don't even get into the cost aspect of upgrading,
because that's just a fact of life. It you want to make
more money by servicing more clients - you purchase
better tools. You take the loss of the upgrade, and recoop
the money with more "Happy" clients.

You Do-Not, However, Charge crazy rates for lousey
Service (As Sympatico has been doing for years) and
then Raise all the Rates - and Blame others for your
incompidence (As Sympatico Is Currently Doing). that's
Called Bad Business. And, as soon as Videotron, iStop,
and other Competition wakes up and makes there Service
easier to obtain - Sympatico had better watch out.

Hey Bell was the Monopoly - then came Sprint, BuckACall etc .... It's coming
for Sympatico Too!

If I had stock in Sympatico - I'd Ditch them all now -
because, when it rains - It's Gonna Pour!


"Calvin Ostrum" <calvin_ostrum@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:39080a20.0205240617.2bf3d5fa@posting.google.com...
> In <3CED85C4.DFBD4478@sympatico.ca>
>    Dave Smith <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> | > | Thats the way a network works.  Bandwidth is shared.
> | >
> | > What do you mean, "that's the way a network works?"  Is
> | > there some built in essence to a "network" that necessitates
> | > that it "works" in the way you describe, i.e., that everyone
> | > pays the same flat rate for unlimited access to it no matter
> | > how much of a load they put on it?  I don't think so.  Since
> | > you portray yourself as some kind of expert, can you please
> | > point me to some references that will enable me to learn
> | > about "the way a network works"?
> |
> | Think of it as an all you can eat buffet.
>
> Restaurants do not generally offer all-you-can-eat
> buffets to people in perpetuity, regardless of what it
> might cost them.  If they start to offer such a thing
> ("all you can eat buffet, all day, every day") and find
> out that the higher price required to subsidize the
> heavy eaters drives away the light eaters, then they
> will retract the offer.  I don't see a lot of
> restaurants around making such an offer.  And those
> that do, I suspect, don't have such a varying rate
> of usage as do high-speed internet providers.  Finally,
> restaurants are not *required* to offer unlimited
> all-you-can-eat buffets.  They can change their menus
> as they see fit.  You have been ranting for days about
> how Bell cannot do this because they agreed to
> offer you unlimited service, and now they are not
> allowed, ever, no matter what, it seems, to
> alter that offer.
>
> | > I have not studied them yet, and perhaps they are biased in
> | > one direction.  So, where are *your* references that argue
> | > that an "unlimited" model for pricing makes more sense,
> | > contrary to what most of these seem to be arguing?  There must
> | > be some careful, well-thought out, writing on the opposite
> | > side of this issue, no?
> |
> | Some people find unlimited access to be too expensive and figure that
they
> | don't need it because they don't use it enough.  Others find that they
spend a
> | lot of time on the net and are willing to pay more for the unlimited
access.
>
> How does this reply to my quoted passage above?  Do you
> have any references on the matter?
>
> In any case, why go on and on about unlimited access?  Bell is
> not required to provide unlimited access, are they?  Are
> they required to provide it forever because they offered
> you a service agreement at one time that has no explicit
> termination, yet reserved the right to change the
> agreement at any time?
>
> | > My demands are a lot closer to the norm, as opposed to
> | > being "minimal". And everyone else is *not* being limited.
> | > The few who want to use a lot more are still going to be
> | > allowed to use a lot more.  It's just that they are going
> | > to have to pay for their extra usage, as they already do with
> | > many other adsl isps in Toronto such as eol and i-stop.
> |
> | They were offered "unlimited access". I don't consider being hooked up
to the
> | net 24/7 but not being able to transfer data (over a set limit) to be
> | unlimited.
>
> They *got* unlimited access, (according to your definition of
> it -- I don't know that it was carefully defined anywhere), but
> in the *future* they won't.  Nobody is saying that the future
> of HSE is going to be correctly described as unlimited.  At
> least I am not.  If Bell describes the *future* (as opposed
> to what you have currently) as "unlimited", I would agree
> that is somewhat misleading (it is still unlimited in
> some sense, since you can pay more and get more -- compare
> sales where they say "limited to five per customer" or
> something like that).  But it is nothing worthy of getting
> so terribly indignant about.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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"
> --------------------------------------------------------------------