> > 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.
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:22:05 -0700, O x f o r d
<iphone@superphone.com> wrote:
>As the need for pointlessly expensive Cell Contracts continues to
>disappear, FON... the world's largest free wireless network has a deal
>to make your CURRENT broadband connection Secure and "Wireless" for $5
>and $5 for shipping.
>
>The faster we all join together to get rid of the old Cell Industry the
>faster everyone on the planet will move forward!
>
>Go here and choose your country!
>
>https://shop.fon.com/FonShop/shop/
>
>Join Fon here, and they will add you to the list to get the $5 router.
>
>http://www.fon.com/en/register/form
>
>The cool thing about all of this is that you can add it to your existing
>wired OR wireless network, and then it allows you to segment your DSL or
>Cable connection into one called "social", the other is "private to
>you"... you make money every time someone connects, plus gives you the
>freedom to "join" any Fon network worldwide.
>
>It's the perfect mesh matrix to get rid of those ugly cell towers and
>provide you with free world wide calls!
>
>The future is here, join the growing "massive... basically FREE" party!
>
>http://www.fon.com/en/
>
>---
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 22:09:19 -0500, News <News@Groups.com> wrote:
>
>
>O x f o r d wrote:
>
>> Join Fon here, and they will add you to the list
>
>
>FON-boi seeks fan-boi for MLM.
On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:33:29 -0700, Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com>
wrote:
>"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
>
On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 18:20:12 -0600, DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx>
wrote:
>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.
>
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 15:04:15 -0500, Tim Murray <no-spam@thankyou.com>
wrote:
>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!
>
>Call two Brinks, then.
>
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 08:47:32 -0500, News <News@Groups.com> wrote:
>
>
>O x f o r d wrote:
>
>
>> you'll understand when you move up to making money off your idle
>> bandwidth.
>>
>
>
>And you'll understand when your ISP cuts you off for TOS violations,
>or the feds show up asking who at your IP was downloading trash.
On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:10:37 +0100, Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
>In article
><dcb07936-ca00-4358-a520-ce188d036b30@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
> Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
>[snip oxfords crap]
>
>> There's nothing "free" about it.
>>
>> "FON is the largest WiFi community in the world. FON is a Community of
>> people making WiFi universal and free. Our vision is WiFi everywhere
>> made possible by the members of the Community, Foneros. We share some
>> of our home Internet connection and get free access to the Community's
>> FON Spots worldwide!"
>>
>> I'm not letting any roaming strangers share my home internet
>> connection. I'm sure it would violate my terms of service even if
>> I were willing.
>>
>> "Foneros connect to thousands of WiFi FON Spots worldwide for free. If
>> you still do not share your WiFi, you can purchase inexpensive access.
>> Find FON Spots on our FON Maps"
>>
>> How is purchasing access or paying for my home internet connection and
>> then sharing it "free?"
>>
>> The iPhone is going to 3G next year, BTW.
>
>It won't have been killed by then?
>
>
>--
>Sandman[.net]
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 20:15:19 -0500, "MuahMan" <muahman@cumcast.net>
wrote:
>
>"Sandman" <mr@sandman.net> wrote in message
>news:mr-30BF34.23103707122007@News.Individual.NET...
>> In article
>> <dcb07936-ca00-4358-a520-ce188d036b30@b1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
>> Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip oxfords crap]
>>
>>> There's nothing "free" about it.
>>>
>>> "FON is the largest WiFi community in the world. FON is a Community of
>>> people making WiFi universal and free. Our vision is WiFi everywhere
>>> made possible by the members of the Community, Foneros. We share some
>>> of our home Internet connection and get free access to the Community's
>>> FON Spots worldwide!"
>>>
>>> I'm not letting any roaming strangers share my home internet
>>> connection. I'm sure it would violate my terms of service even if
>>> I were willing.
>>>
>>> "Foneros connect to thousands of WiFi FON Spots worldwide for free. If
>>> you still do not share your WiFi, you can purchase inexpensive access.
>>> Find FON Spots on our FON Maps"
>>>
>>> How is purchasing access or paying for my home internet connection and
>>> then sharing it "free?"
>>>
>>> The iPhone is going to 3G next year, BTW.
>>
>> It won't have been killed by then?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sandman[.net]
>
>Killed is different than irrelevant?
>
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 18:19:41 +1100, Simon Templar <usenet@vk3xem.net>
wrote:
>Oxtard wrote:
>> only a few hundred, but have made $34 bucks in 2 months, not bad...
>>
>> you'll understand when you move up to making money off your idle
>> bandwidth.
>
>How does that make it FREE WiFi access? You really are a FUCKING MORON
>Oxtard.
>
>
>
>--
>The views I present are that of my own and NOT of any organisation I may
>belong to.
>
>73 de Simon, VK3XEM.
><http://web.acma.gov.au/pls/radcom/client_search.client_lookup?pCLIENT_NO=157452>
>
> Why are you posting this in a Nokia group?
>
>
> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:33:29 -0700, Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com>
> wrote:
>> "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 hit reply... I do not know the "native" group of all the folks in the
thread.
If you need other help with how Usenet works just ask... I am happy to be of
service.
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 18:47:58 -0700, Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com>
wrote:
>"bobmartin479@hotmail.com" <bobmartin479@hotmail.com> stated in post
>47679831.3887203@news.individual.net on 12/9/07 6:37 PM:
>
>>
>> Why are you posting this in a Nokia group?
>>
>If you need other help with how Usenet works just ask... I am happy to be of
>service.
???? I'm not the one who needs help. You are. Let me help you not to
ruin serious news groups.
Nokia is a mobile phone brand and has very little to do with your
postings.
bobmartin479@hotmail.com wrote:
> Why are you posting this in a Nokia group?
>
>
> On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 18:20:12 -0600, DTC <me@nothingtoseehere.zzx>
> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
He/she/it is a broadband spammer that is convinced that its posted babel
is essential knowledge for the whole planet-just KF the twit.
> Wow...that sounds like the way my mom explained Catholicism to me over
fifty years ago.
As an ex-Catholic, I used to have lots of run-ins with my instructors over
the sillier tennants of the religion. Like the whole cardboard-wafer they
passed out actually becoming the flesh of Jesus when blessed.
I asked why we believe Jesus had the power to walk on water, turn water to
wine and feed a thousand people with a few fish, but we didn't believe he
had the power to speak using a metaphor... ;-)
>>> Why are you posting this in a Nokia group?
>
>> If you need other help with how Usenet works just ask... I am happy to be of
>> service.
>
> ???? I'm not the one who needs help.
If you are not the one who posted the question then the answer was not
directed at you. If that is the case, though, it makes it hard to follow
conversations when multiple people post with the same name.
Re: Join the Wireless Phone Revolution for $10! 
Linear Mode
