In comp.os.linux.advocacy, bbgruff
on Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:35:04 +0100
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>>> [+] I pay $40 per month for a 1.5Mb/s ISDN connection. There are
>>>> cheaper plans, I'm sure.
>>> You really meant to type that?
>> I probably should have said DSL instead of ISDN.
> Thanks G - *that* was the question!
> I was just wondering there if you guys had got some new-fangled version of
Nope, just a brain-o on my part. ;-)
> I dare say the BB price and availability is a bit
> patchier over there than it is here, but (no offence!)
> it does my heart good to find that we get a better deal
> now than many of you guys.
I'm envious. :-P :-) Then again, the BBC was rather hard
on BT at one point; apparently the rated bandwidth was not
quite the same as the bandwidth one actually *got*.
> Bear in mind that this attitude of mine
> stems from dial-up days about 12-14 years ago, when you
> yanks got your internet connection for "free", and we were
> paying typically $1 to $3 per hour:-(
Around here, "free" might mean a nickel an hour, actually.
$30/month = $1/day, after all. There was talk of charging
by the megabyte but apparently that was quickly quashed
way back when -- though it might be resurfacing now; the
idea is to require heavy Internet users to pay more.
Can't be too careful I guess with all of those BitTorrenters.
> Now (just for comparison) I get 8Mb down, 1.2 Mb up for
> (converting) $28,
Yeah yeah yeah, you and your newfangled euros. ;-)
> and the option of "up to 24Mb" down for
> about $37, but I doubt I'd get much more than 8Mb if I
> opted for it (line condition and distance), so I just go
> with the cheaper. All "unlimited bandwidth", but a
> "fair use" clause.
> At that, I reckon we've closed the gap (thank goodness!)
> That's all DSL and telephone, of course - some folks have
> cable, and probably a better deal.
Cable has its own problems; apparently there's an issue
if everyone on a loop starts downloading at once.
> While I have your attention, may I ask what you guys pay
> typically for a telephone line and national calls? In fact,
> considering the size of the U.S., perhaps we ought to say
> "unlimited calls withing the state!"?
Heh. There's a couple of issues with that. My calls
outside of the state are darned few, so haven't kept track
of the billing plans. The mobile issues are a bewildering
maze of rollover minutes, texting, and data fetch; the
landlines thankfully only have to deal with the minutes.
Until recently one could contract with three separate
companies: one to do the DSL, one to do local calling,
and one to do long distance. Mergers have complicated the
system even more in some respects, though have simplified
it in other ways; Earthlink now handles all my needs
in that respect, though again my long distance needs
are minimal in that respect, and Earthlink apparently
subcontracts. All fine and good as long as things work,
and they've been working reasonably well for a number
There's also the issue of differently-sized states.
California is over 12 hours "long" (if one drives down,
say, Interstate 5). States in the Northeast US can
be as little as 2 hours, if not even less. The patchwork
quilt (which is getting worse as more people fill in)
of area codes, ZUM charges (toll calls that aren't quite
long distance), and other such don't help.
And then there's the history of AT&T, which is a very long,
involved one (I actually have some sort of telegraph
relay; I do not remember where I got it from but one wonders
if AT&T has any such left now). Back before The Breakup(tm),
it was Ma Bell, a government-sanctioned monopoly, but it
shattered into 7 pieces, which are now putting themselves
back together into AT&T again.
Over time, we might have Ma Bell II or some such.
Useless C/C++ Programming Idea #104392:
for(int i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) sleep(0);
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **