O x f o r d <iphone@superphone.com> wrote in
news:iphone-EE7AF9.19544308122007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net:
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>> >> or $204 a year, or about half my DSL bill each year.
>> >>
>> >> sweet!
>> >
>> > Wow you pay $408 a year for DSL? What speeds do you get?
>
> nothing too speedy, about 1300 kb/s down - 740 up
And you tell everyone you're on the cutting edge? I'm getting 8400 down
and 1460 up tonight and spend about half of what you're paying. Of course,
it simply continues to peove that Apple fanbois pay way too much for way
too little performance.
But I'm sure those slow speeds are fine for your little Fisher Price
macbook.
>
> what are you getting wise tonight?
>
> http://www.speedtest.net/
>
>> He probably has the ultimate DSL package so he an support the 250
>> people parked around his house using his "FREE" open WiFi. lol
>
> nope, i never allow more than 10.
10 on that connection will drop it down to slow dialup speeds.
> > nothing too speedy, about 1300 kb/s down - 740 up
>
> And you tell everyone you're on the cutting edge?
when did i say that in relation to dsl speed? never.
> I'm getting 8400 down
> and 1460 up tonight and spend about half of what you're paying.
great, but you probably aren't getting that on dsl. i also live in a
more expensive area that you, so that plays into it as well.
> Of course,
> it simply continues to peove that Apple fanbois pay way too much for way
> too little performance.
what? your logic doesn't make sense.
> But I'm sure those slow speeds are fine for your little Fisher Price
> macbook.
wireless is only so fast, if i was on a windows or linux box, speeds
would be the same. cozmic continues to show his ignorance.
> > what are you getting wise tonight?
> >
> > http://www.speedtest.net/
> >
> >> He probably has the ultimate DSL package so he an support the 250
> >> people parked around his house using his "FREE" open WiFi. lol
> >
> > nope, i never allow more than 10.
>
> 10 on that connection will drop it down to slow dialup speeds.
50 perhaps but 10 isn't noticeable. cozmic continues to show his
ignorance.
O x f o r d wrote:
> great, but you probably aren't getting that on dsl. i also live in a
> more expensive area that you, so that plays into it as well.
DSL speeds are defendant on the telco copper, not housing costs.
Case in point:
There areas near me with $300,000 - $500,000 homes that can't get any
DSL, but the trailer park across the street from them can get 3 Mbps
speeds.
DTC wrote:
> O x f o r d wrote:
>> DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx> wrote:
>>
>>> Directed to Oxford to answer...
>>>
>>> Have you filed your necessary FCC paperwork? There are two
>>> forms you need to submit.
>>>
>>> The maximum possible fine for violations of these rules
>>> could be as much as $130,000 per day with a maximum of
>>> $1,325,000 per violation.
>>
>> doesn't apply to base stations. try again.
>
> Where does the FCC use the phrase "base stations" in the applicable
> descriptions of the aforementioned forms? Try again.
>
> Oh wait...you likely don't even know the forms they want to to provide.
>
> But then, you could quickly start "goggling" for that information.
Google must be slow tonight. Oxford hasn't found the answer yet.
"O x f o r d" <iphone@superphone.com> wrote in message
news:iphone-0671B7.20025208122007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net...
> Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
>
>> Yea, that is way to expensive for a connection to the internet.
>>
>> I only pay $200 a year for 5M down/512k up cable connection
>
> you're probably forgetting taxes / fees, etc...
>
> so you are only paying $16.50 a month for DSL? very doubtful, but if
> so... where?
If you would learn to read he said cable connection. Not for DSL...
O x f o r d <iphone@superphone.com> wrote in
news:iphone-7F8409.20142708122007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net:
> CozmicDebris <isheforreal> wrote:
>
>> > nothing too speedy, about 1300 kb/s down - 740 up
>>
>> And you tell everyone you're on the cutting edge?
>
> when did i say that in relation to dsl speed? never.
I thought all Apple fanbois were on the cutting edge of everything? At
least that's what you've said in the past.
>
>> I'm getting 8400 down
>> and 1460 up tonight and spend about half of what you're paying.
>
> great, but you probably aren't getting that on dsl. i also live in a
> more expensive area that you, so that plays into it as well.
>
In Minnesota? Doubtful. In fact, a quick check of the Qwest website
shows that to be untrue, Oxtard.
>> Of course,
>> it simply continues to peove that Apple fanbois pay way too much for
>> way too little performance.
>
> what? your logic doesn't make sense.
Sure it does:
iPhone- overpriced
Mac- overpriced
your slow speed dsl- overpriced
>
>> But I'm sure those slow speeds are fine for your little Fisher Price
>> macbook.
>
> wireless is only so fast,
No- yours is slow in comparison to many
> if i was on a windows or linux box, speeds
> would be the same. cozmic continues to show his ignorance.
No- Oxtard continues to show his stupidity.
>
>> > what are you getting wise tonight?
>> >
>> > http://www.speedtest.net/
>> >
>> >> He probably has the ultimate DSL package so he an support the 250
>> >> people parked around his house using his "FREE" open WiFi. lol
>> >
>> > nope, i never allow more than 10.
>>
>> 10 on that connection will drop it down to slow dialup speeds.
>
> 50 perhaps but 10 isn't noticeable. cozmic continues to show his
> ignorance.
O x f o r d wrote:
> Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
>
>> Yea, that is way to expensive for a connection to the internet.
>>
>> I only pay $200 a year for 5M down/512k up cable connection
>
> you're probably forgetting taxes / fees, etc...
>
> so you are only paying $16.50 a month for DSL? very doubtful, but if
> so... where?
Only 7 states in the US have to pay taxes on internet. I guess you must
live in one of them...
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 19:54:44 -0700, O x f o r d wrote:
> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>> >> or $204 a year, or about half my DSL bill each year.
>> >>
>> >> sweet!
>> >
>> > Wow you pay $408 a year for DSL? What speeds do you get?
>
> nothing too speedy, about 1300 kb/s down - 740 up
>
> what are you getting wise tonight?
>
> http://www.speedtest.net/
>
>> He probably has the ultimate DSL package so he an support the 250
>> people parked around his house using his "FREE" open WiFi. lol
>
> nope, i never allow more than 10.
Why not? You're the big "give the wifi away free" guy. Why just 10?
>> nope, i never allow more than 10.
>
> Why not? You're the big "give the wifi away free" guy. Why just 10?
If you split it to much the bandwidth is slowed for others. Think of it as
a sprinkler system: you can only have so many sprinklers for a given pipe
size / pressure before your sprinklers will not spray effectively. Until
you hit that number, though, you can add more without hurting others.
This assumes, of course, that your "sprinklers" have equal needs. If you
add just one with a large need it can effect all others. The idea, though,
is that it is a limited resource.
Does that help you to understand? And please, please, do not claim you were
merely feigning ignorance again.
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
--Albert Einstein
> If you split it to much the bandwidth is slowed for others.
You forget Rick was arguing with Oxford, who has assured us all in the past
any WiFi connection can easily handle 50-100 without any drop in performance.
> Does that help you to understand? And please, please, do not claim you
were
> merely feigning ignorance again.
Arguing with Oxford is like arguing relgion- one side has to accept the
other's world view as a starting point and back out of it via the
inconsistencies found in it...
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 17:34:39 -0500, O x f o r d wrote:
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Wow, 34.00 for 2 months. Quick, Call brinks armored truck service.
>
> or $204 a year, or about half my DSL bill each year.
>
> sweet!
In article <iphone-0671B7.20025208122007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>,
O x f o r d <iphone@superphone.com> wrote:
> Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
>
> > Yea, that is way to expensive for a connection to the internet.
> >
> > I only pay $200 a year for 5M down/512k up cable connection
>
> you're probably forgetting taxes / fees, etc...
>
> so you are only paying $16.50 a month for DSL? very doubtful, but if
> so... where?
Good God, man -- why do you automatically insert DSL when he just wrote
cable?
DSL is a METHOD for getting broadband networking.
As coaxial cable service is a method for it.
Neither one is a synonym for broadband internet.
"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> stated in post
2a_6j.7261$061.6615@fe117.usenetserver.com on 12/9/07 12:01 PM:
> At 09 Dec 2007 11:34:51 -0700 Snit wrote:
>
>> If you split it to much the bandwidth is slowed for others.
>
> You forget Rick was arguing with Oxford, who has assured us all in the past
> any WiFi connection can easily handle 50-100 without any drop in performance.
>
>
>
>> Does that help you to understand? And please, please, do not claim you
> were
>> merely feigning ignorance again.
>
> Arguing with Oxford is like arguing relgion- one side has to accept the
> other's world view as a starting point and back out of it via the
> inconsistencies found in it...
I am not arguing that Oxford is correct - but Rick often feigns ignorance in
his debates... it is a silly tactic.
--
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
everyone. -- Bill Cosby
Mitch wrote:
> DSL is a METHOD for getting broadband networking.
> As coaxial cable service is a method for it.
> Neither one is a synonym for broadband internet.
For the most part, consumers order "internet" without realizing the
subtle differences in what they order.
Considering that I haven't seen any DSL or WiFi offerings under 200
Kbps, I could argue that anything other than dial-up is broadband (based
on the FCC's third world definition of anything faster than 200 Kbps is
"broadband").
Unless someone orders something specific, then they get both the
delivery method and internet access at the same time.
Exceptions would include:
T1 with or without an internet point of presence. $350 vs as high
or over $800 per month.
DSL with or without an internet point of presence. Base rate and
then subtract typically $20 for dropping any connection to the
internet.
Cable from the local TV cable provider. I don't know of any that
give you "pipe access" only.
Then you get into the static IP support, garden walled DSLAM routers,
etc. arena.
Todd Allcock wrote:
> Arguing with Oxford is like arguing relgion- one side has to accept the
> other's world view as a starting point and back out of it via the
> inconsistencies found in it...
Wow...that sounds like the way my mom explained Catholicism to me over
fifty years ago.
Re: Join the Wireless Phone Revolution for $10! 
Linear Mode
