Nope. It's not. It's not in a LOT of places, several cities in Michigan and several in Ohio, at the least. Every city I've lived in, actually.
I've also found, from my own experience, my experience selling the devices, and through observation of friends, family, and coworkers, that a huge part of the reliability of cell service lies in your device, rather than the network. If all you ever get is the free (or cheaper) phones, all you'll ever be likely to have is crap service.
A poorly designed antenna or poorly implemented radio can be the difference between full signal and no signal; I've been on both ends of that, standing in the same spot, with different phones; same SIM card, same service. Switched the SIM back and forth a few times to make sure it wasn't just a momentary outage.
Yes, it makes that much of a difference. One phone (freebie Motorola peanut-looking thing) got no signal. The other (Nokia 6820) got full signal.
Funny, everywhere I've ever lived since I got a cell phone, I've lost service on my landline more frequently and for longer periods of time than on m cell.
I'm in an apartment now, with no landline, but I hear about landline outages all the time. My grandfather is the apartment manager, living on the opposite end of the same building, and my mother lives two stories directly below me; they have outages every couple weeks, at the same time. Wiring from the pole, to the demarc was replaced last year. Wiring from the demarc to each unit was replaced 9 months ago. Wiring in each unit is replaced when the tenant moves out, or upon request; my grandfather's was the first to be replaced and my mother moved in after I did, after they started changing out the wiring. The problems still continue. Last month, AT&T replaced wiring from the nearest pole, all the way to the CO. There have been 3 outages since then.
I had a 5 hour DATA outage, incoming and outgoing calls worked fine, on my AT&T BlackBerry Curve yesterday. That's one of 3 outages I've experienced that wasn't caused by my own faulty equipment, in seven years with AT&T.
That's right, I've seen as many landline outages, with no wiring more than a year old, in the last month, than I have experienced cellular outages in the last 7 years... In the last month. Extrapolate that and you get an 84:1 ratio of landline:cell failures in my area.
One of the other cell outages I've had were when the AT&T/Cingular merger originally happened and I was still on a Cingular rate plan. Switching to an AT&T rate plan fixed it. That did piss me off, since it was the same rate plan, for the same monthly charge, with the same terms, on the same phone, with the same SIM card and same phone number, on the same towers. It's almost like the towers were programmed to fuck up Cingular rate plans; change one bit and it works great.
The other was after the huge blackout that affected most of the northern US. My phone worked fine (charging off of an inverter) until 2 hours before power was restored. It worked again 5 minutes after the lights came back on.
I'd say, with the inexcusable exception of their obvious mucking with connections based on the TYPE of rate plan, the reliability of my cell has been amazing.
Forcibly starving someone is a form of murder. By stockpiling the majority of available funds and forcing up the price of food, the rich ARE killing the poor, quite legally. It's called capitalism.
As a side note, I had to go back and correct a typo before posting; I typed "rick" instead of "rich". I just rick-rolled my own post.
Actually, I've DENIED (again, not COST) them monetary compensation by not buying, whether I "pirate" *COUGH*commitcopyrightinfringement*PIRATE* or not.
I haven't denied gamespot anything, until I steal a copy from their shelf. Then, I've denied them the ability to sell that copy. I've also, then, cost them whatever they paid for that copy.
Further, in the spirit of the rest of my post, which you obviously failed to read:
If I'm denying the author monetary compensation for their work by not buying and I'm not buying because I'm weary of spending $60 on a game I might not like (on MY hardware, not a friend's, which, being different than mine, different keyboard, different mouse, faster CPU, but less RAM, let's just say), would provide a different experience (I may love the game but hate how it runs on my hardware, for example), what then?
Play the demo? You do realize that a good number of game demos don't even run on the same (version of the) engine as the full game, right? Maybe different graphics, maybe less loaded into RAM or less complex AI, all things that would make the experience different. If there's a demo available at all.
So, I deny the author monetary compensation for their work, entirely, or I risk denying myself the ability to reap any benefit from that $60 I spent on a game I don't like and can't return.
But, wait! There's another, better option! An option which has existed, quite successfully, for years, known as "Shareware" or "Trialware", which involves providing a (sometimes stripped of the ability to save of load) full copy of the software, either for free or for the cost of producing that copy, in expectation that people who enjoy it will buy it.
Wait... that's all but dead in gaming!
There is, of course, a 4th option! Download the motherfucker. If you don't like it, delete it. The author would have been denied that compensation anyway, since you would not have bought it without trying it (on your own hardware), AND you get to keep your $60, to spend it on another game that you DO like.
Oh, and if you do like the game? Go buy it, let the author have some of that hard-earned monetary compensation you think they deserve; you know, the money you would not have put in their pocket if you didn't know you liked their work. Keep the pirated copy installed, though; you'll need the CD in the drive and have to deal with crappy DRM if you install the purchased copy.
When you steal a game from gamespot, you just cost gamespot money. Gamespot paid for the copy you stole.
When you download a copy of a game, and this is the distinction between copyright infringement and stealing, you did not cost gamespot money. Gamespot did not pay for the copy you downloaded. You did not cost the game's author money. The game's author did not pay to produce the copy you downloaded. Unless you would have paid for the game if you couldn't have downloaded it, nobody has lost a sale.
If you would have paid for it, you've cost the author AND gamespot both a sale. Unless, of course, you pay for it once you decide you like it.
If you would have paid for it, you download it, you like it, and you don't pay for it when you can, you're part of the problem. If you don't fit all four of those requirements, the problem isn't you; it's the price or the product.
Piracy is the result of human nature: when faced with the option of getting something for free or paying for it, and in the absence of any significant risks, you don't need complex economic studies to show you that most people will opt for the free route.
So says the summary; and the summary is correct. On the surface, this would seem to disagree with the parent post. However, it actually provides evidence that parent has his head on quite straight.
There are a number of very significant risks involved with "the free route". If the majority of a class of product, provided for sale, is obtained for free, there is a risk that further developments of those products, as well as development of new products in that class, will cease. There's always the risk that future products will become more restricted and less capable, in response to the "piracy" issue. Of course, there is also the risk that "content" providers and creators will wake up and realize that there is a large fraction of the "pirate" community who would pay if the prices were fair. Just to name a few.
I haven't outright bought a CD or DVD in years. I have downloaded a LOT, however. If I like it, I keep it; if I can afford it, I DO buy it -- only after downloading and previewing it. If I can't afford it, I'll ask someone to buy it for me for my birthday or Christmas.
Why? By ensuring that the creator of the product gets paid, at some point, for the enjoyment I have derived from their work, I help to ensure that the first risk I enumerate is lessened. Obtaining it freely mitigates one risk, namely the risk of my wasting money I can't afford to waste, while increasing the risk that the content creator will understand why I've opted to try it before I buy it. I help mitigate the second risk I've enumerated by posting these explanations and doing my best to back them up.
The whole system of paying to ensure that something will continue to exist, and exist in a usable, worthwhile form, really does work.
The system of not paying for something because it is unfairly priced also works.
The system of not paying for something until you're sure you like it, because it would be deemed to be unfairly priced if you find that you don't, also works. It worked for the software industry for years; it was called "Shareware". In fact, it's still very much alive, though now more commonly known as "Trialware". It does, indeed, wor.; I use some "Trialware" software which, while I have not paid for it, I have contributed to by assisting in tracking down and fixing bugs; in exchange for helping to make the product better, I was granted a free license for these pieces of software. Could I have done that without the free trial? Well, I could have reported bugs, but I would have been sued for copyright infringement, rather than given a free license; not to mention that, after being sued for trying to help, I'm not sure I'd have been so willing to assist the developer in tracking down the bugs I found.
Does this apply to music and movies? To a point, yes, it does. While we can't help producers find and correct bad vocals or inconsistencies in storylines, we certainly can help them determine which artists and stories should get the most advertisement and development funding. If the "piracy"-to-purchase ratio is favorable, one would hope producers would take that as a sign that they need to focus their work on those artists and stories.
It's free market research. What more could they ask for?
I use supplemental stylesheets for IE6 and IE7, both contain 4 or 5 entries. Otherwise, it displays correctly, as is, in every browser on browsershots.
I'm too busy transforming a 1979 RCA console TV into a computer case (with shelf for A/V equipment) right now to argue this, though.
I'll try to remember you when I launch the public beta... and yes, I have header, top navigation, 3 columns, footer and disclaimer. There is actual content in the columns.
It does help to know what you are doing. I'm all for requiring a license to build or remodel (excuse my usage of those terms, I'll get to the point shortly) a website (for someone other than yourself), just as we require contractors to be licensed to build or remodel a house.
Amen. A project I'm currently working on uses CSS/XHTML and em-sizing, to allow it to scale, with separate screen and print stylesheets to allow lists to be printed without ads and menus; I also have stylesheets for mobiles that support them (and hide nonessential elements on those platforms), using tables only for mobile devices that don't support CSS.
the whole project is designed with accessibility in mind. I'm testing it in lynx, alongside other browsers and it works flawlessly.
Any JavaScript used on the site will be purely a luxury option; the site will be fully functional with no JavaScript before any is added, as well as after.
Does it take a little longer? Yes. Is it worth it? If your client wants the site to be as accessible as possible, yes.
I suppose it helps that I'm a mere 5 minute drive (10 minute walk, traffic's a bitch) from the plant. It's my understanding, however, form friends and colleagues much farther away from the plant than myself that my experience is par for the course.
It helps that Cox is a franchise and my local franchise is actually locally owned and operated. Each Cox franchise is its own private company, with its own infrastructure; I guess it must just be easier to maintain a lot of smaller networks than it is to keep track of one large one.
As long as I can't tell they're oversold, that's fine with me, they may as well not be oversold. I've run tests every time of day, on holidays, on work days, on weekends, anytime a service or site feels slow to me. I'm always getting what I should be getting.
It is possible to use more bandwidth than is available to you; I can do this in two ways with my ISP, actually. First of all, I can burst my line above 1Mbps upstream for a longer than reasonable period of time (which I've come to find is only an issue if there are connections to or from multiple addresses), which causes me to use more than my fair share of bandwidth. I can also take on more requests than my connection can handle. Rest assured that, if the level of incoming requests were burst my connection to full capacity (over 30Mbps), for a long period of time, somebody would take notice.
Were I to rate-limit my upstream, at the router, to 1Mbps and my downstream to 12Mbps (QoS allows for this) to avoid bursting, I could run my connection maxed out 24x7 and my ISP wouldn't give a damn.
That is how it should be done; grow to meet demands. If you become unprofitable, you should have had more foresight. Just never, EVER, screw the customer because you made a bad decision. going out of business is not a form of screwing the customer, they can always find another provider.
Oops, I forgot to say the following: My ISP offers 1500/256k, 12/1m and 20/2m service and is averse to the idea of throttling or capping. These issues don't affect me as long as I am with this ISP, who, by the way, has very reasonable prices for what they offer. I'd say $45 for a 12/2 line that I can't tell shared at the node is a pretty damn good deal; given that I can burst it to over 30Mbps when I really need (want) to.
I, honestly, have my internet. I love it; and I will continue to give this ISP (cable provider) as much of my hard earned money as I can afford to, so long as they remain as morally strong on these issues as they have been in the past and are currently. That's right, I'm voting with my wallet. I've written (and hand-delivered, they're 5min from me) their CEO a letter to this effect, as well and was assured by him directly that they were prepared to take as much of my money as I could afford to give them.
I love his sense of humor, as well as his business savvy. That's why I'm his customer and will be for the foreseeable future. It's nice to hear, directly from the man at the top, that my service will only get better.
Then I wrote the letter, my $45 was netting me 6000/512. The same $45 now pays for the line mentioned above. I can even run a server (forbidden by TOS, yes), provided that I don't let things get out of control. Again, per the CEO, this is how they enforce their TOS; they'll block the port it's running on and give me a phone call if it becomes an issue.
This is how an ISP should be run. Period.
I pay for 12/1, I get 12/1, burstable to faster than 30/2 (I've seen 33/2.2). There's a no servers clause in the TOS only to cover them if they NEED to block a port because a server is using too much BW; then they call and let you know they did it. Speeds and reliability are awesome and always improving.
Power dropped for a few hours for an area covering 3 cities (including the cable plant). My modem and router are on a UPS, I was online the whole time. I powered up a portable TV; yup, cable was still up.
I'll say it again: This is how an ISP should be run. Period.
Slashdot Mirror
Well it looks like shit and feels broken. Can we PLEASE have the old /. back?
Nope. It's not. It's not in a LOT of places, several cities in Michigan and several in Ohio, at the least. Every city I've lived in, actually.
I've also found, from my own experience, my experience selling the devices, and through observation of friends, family, and coworkers, that a huge part of the reliability of cell service lies in your device, rather than the network. If all you ever get is the free (or cheaper) phones, all you'll ever be likely to have is crap service.
A poorly designed antenna or poorly implemented radio can be the difference between full signal and no signal; I've been on both ends of that, standing in the same spot, with different phones; same SIM card, same service. Switched the SIM back and forth a few times to make sure it wasn't just a momentary outage.
Yes, it makes that much of a difference. One phone (freebie Motorola peanut-looking thing) got no signal. The other (Nokia 6820) got full signal.
Funny, everywhere I've ever lived since I got a cell phone, I've lost service on my landline more frequently and for longer periods of time than on m cell.
I'm in an apartment now, with no landline, but I hear about landline outages all the time. My grandfather is the apartment manager, living on the opposite end of the same building, and my mother lives two stories directly below me; they have outages every couple weeks, at the same time. Wiring from the pole, to the demarc was replaced last year. Wiring from the demarc to each unit was replaced 9 months ago. Wiring in each unit is replaced when the tenant moves out, or upon request; my grandfather's was the first to be replaced and my mother moved in after I did, after they started changing out the wiring. The problems still continue. Last month, AT&T replaced wiring from the nearest pole, all the way to the CO. There have been 3 outages since then.
I had a 5 hour DATA outage, incoming and outgoing calls worked fine, on my AT&T BlackBerry Curve yesterday. That's one of 3 outages I've experienced that wasn't caused by my own faulty equipment, in seven years with AT&T.
That's right, I've seen as many landline outages, with no wiring more than a year old, in the last month, than I have experienced cellular outages in the last 7 years... In the last month. Extrapolate that and you get an 84:1 ratio of landline:cell failures in my area.
One of the other cell outages I've had were when the AT&T/Cingular merger originally happened and I was still on a Cingular rate plan. Switching to an AT&T rate plan fixed it. That did piss me off, since it was the same rate plan, for the same monthly charge, with the same terms, on the same phone, with the same SIM card and same phone number, on the same towers. It's almost like the towers were programmed to fuck up Cingular rate plans; change one bit and it works great.
The other was after the huge blackout that affected most of the northern US. My phone worked fine (charging off of an inverter) until 2 hours before power was restored. It worked again 5 minutes after the lights came back on.
I'd say, with the inexcusable exception of their obvious mucking with connections based on the TYPE of rate plan, the reliability of my cell has been amazing.
If you listen to the ENTIRE "our offices are closed" message, you are given an 800 number to their after hours call center.
That's where the message about the outage was.
Wrong place, if you ask me, but there it was.
All I lost yesterday was EDGE and GPRS, presumably 3G, as well, but I have no way to know for sure.
Incoming and outgoing calls both worked fine for me all day. Everything is working now.
Forcibly starving someone is a form of murder. By stockpiling the majority of available funds and forcing up the price of food, the rich ARE killing the poor, quite legally. It's called capitalism.
As a side note, I had to go back and correct a typo before posting; I typed "rick" instead of "rich". I just rick-rolled my own post.
a not-first-post first-post? interesting.
seconded...
mods, mod GP insightful or funny
Actually, I've DENIED (again, not COST) them monetary compensation by not buying, whether I "pirate" *COUGH*commitcopyrightinfringement*PIRATE* or not.
I haven't denied gamespot anything, until I steal a copy from their shelf. Then, I've denied them the ability to sell that copy. I've also, then, cost them whatever they paid for that copy.
Further, in the spirit of the rest of my post, which you obviously failed to read:
If I'm denying the author monetary compensation for their work by not buying and I'm not buying because I'm weary of spending $60 on a game I might not like (on MY hardware, not a friend's, which, being different than mine, different keyboard, different mouse, faster CPU, but less RAM, let's just say), would provide a different experience (I may love the game but hate how it runs on my hardware, for example), what then?
Play the demo? You do realize that a good number of game demos don't even run on the same (version of the) engine as the full game, right? Maybe different graphics, maybe less loaded into RAM or less complex AI, all things that would make the experience different. If there's a demo available at all.
So, I deny the author monetary compensation for their work, entirely, or I risk denying myself the ability to reap any benefit from that $60 I spent on a game I don't like and can't return.
But, wait! There's another, better option! An option which has existed, quite successfully, for years, known as "Shareware" or "Trialware", which involves providing a (sometimes stripped of the ability to save of load) full copy of the software, either for free or for the cost of producing that copy, in expectation that people who enjoy it will buy it.
Wait... that's all but dead in gaming!
There is, of course, a 4th option! Download the motherfucker. If you don't like it, delete it. The author would have been denied that compensation anyway, since you would not have bought it without trying it (on your own hardware), AND you get to keep your $60, to spend it on another game that you DO like.
Oh, and if you do like the game? Go buy it, let the author have some of that hard-earned monetary compensation you think they deserve; you know, the money you would not have put in their pocket if you didn't know you liked their work. Keep the pirated copy installed, though; you'll need the CD in the drive and have to deal with crappy DRM if you install the purchased copy.
When you steal a game from gamespot, you just cost gamespot money. Gamespot paid for the copy you stole.
When you download a copy of a game, and this is the distinction between copyright infringement and stealing, you did not cost gamespot money. Gamespot did not pay for the copy you downloaded. You did not cost the game's author money. The game's author did not pay to produce the copy you downloaded. Unless you would have paid for the game if you couldn't have downloaded it, nobody has lost a sale.
If you would have paid for it, you've cost the author AND gamespot both a sale. Unless, of course, you pay for it once you decide you like it.
If you would have paid for it, you download it, you like it, and you don't pay for it when you can, you're part of the problem. If you don't fit all four of those requirements, the problem isn't you; it's the price or the product.
In the same vein as the parent post...
Piracy is the result of human nature: when faced with the option of getting something for free or paying for it, and in the absence of any significant risks, you don't need complex economic studies to show you that most people will opt for the free route.
So says the summary; and the summary is correct. On the surface, this would seem to disagree with the parent post. However, it actually provides evidence that parent has his head on quite straight.
There are a number of very significant risks involved with "the free route". If the majority of a class of product, provided for sale, is obtained for free, there is a risk that further developments of those products, as well as development of new products in that class, will cease. There's always the risk that future products will become more restricted and less capable, in response to the "piracy" issue. Of course, there is also the risk that "content" providers and creators will wake up and realize that there is a large fraction of the "pirate" community who would pay if the prices were fair. Just to name a few.
I haven't outright bought a CD or DVD in years. I have downloaded a LOT, however. If I like it, I keep it; if I can afford it, I DO buy it -- only after downloading and previewing it. If I can't afford it, I'll ask someone to buy it for me for my birthday or Christmas.
Why? By ensuring that the creator of the product gets paid, at some point, for the enjoyment I have derived from their work, I help to ensure that the first risk I enumerate is lessened. Obtaining it freely mitigates one risk, namely the risk of my wasting money I can't afford to waste, while increasing the risk that the content creator will understand why I've opted to try it before I buy it. I help mitigate the second risk I've enumerated by posting these explanations and doing my best to back them up.
The whole system of paying to ensure that something will continue to exist, and exist in a usable, worthwhile form, really does work.
The system of not paying for something because it is unfairly priced also works.
The system of not paying for something until you're sure you like it, because it would be deemed to be unfairly priced if you find that you don't, also works. It worked for the software industry for years; it was called "Shareware". In fact, it's still very much alive, though now more commonly known as "Trialware". It does, indeed, wor.; I use some "Trialware" software which, while I have not paid for it, I have contributed to by assisting in tracking down and fixing bugs; in exchange for helping to make the product better, I was granted a free license for these pieces of software. Could I have done that without the free trial? Well, I could have reported bugs, but I would have been sued for copyright infringement, rather than given a free license; not to mention that, after being sued for trying to help, I'm not sure I'd have been so willing to assist the developer in tracking down the bugs I found.
Does this apply to music and movies? To a point, yes, it does. While we can't help producers find and correct bad vocals or inconsistencies in storylines, we certainly can help them determine which artists and stories should get the most advertisement and development funding. If the "piracy"-to-purchase ratio is favorable, one would hope producers would take that as a sign that they need to focus their work on those artists and stories.
It's free market research. What more could they ask for?
w....
wh...
who?
**WHOOSH**
Apparently, less common, sleep sleeping.
How long until carbon-neutral means depositing your factory's (or car's) exhaust as diamond?
Actually, that would be kinda cool. Too bad DeBeers would assassinate anyone who even thought about develo
I use supplemental stylesheets for IE6 and IE7, both contain 4 or 5 entries. Otherwise, it displays correctly, as is, in every browser on browsershots.
I'm too busy transforming a 1979 RCA console TV into a computer case (with shelf for A/V equipment) right now to argue this, though.
So, your personal experience and ability is the be-all, end-all of web design?
Wow. Amazing.
I'll try to remember you when I launch the public beta... and yes, I have header, top navigation, 3 columns, footer and disclaimer. There is actual content in the columns.
It does help to know what you are doing. I'm all for requiring a license to build or remodel (excuse my usage of those terms, I'll get to the point shortly) a website (for someone other than yourself), just as we require contractors to be licensed to build or remodel a house.
Amen. A project I'm currently working on uses CSS/XHTML and em-sizing, to allow it to scale, with separate screen and print stylesheets to allow lists to be printed without ads and menus; I also have stylesheets for mobiles that support them (and hide nonessential elements on those platforms), using tables only for mobile devices that don't support CSS.
the whole project is designed with accessibility in mind. I'm testing it in lynx, alongside other browsers and it works flawlessly.
Any JavaScript used on the site will be purely a luxury option; the site will be fully functional with no JavaScript before any is added, as well as after.
Does it take a little longer? Yes. Is it worth it? If your client wants the site to be as accessible as possible, yes.
Anything I create with CSS uses em-sizing, so when you browse with 200% font size, everything scales: text, images, and the space they are in.
Nothing overlaps, nothing looks out of place. Try learning how to properly use CSS before you make such blanket statements.
I don't know any NRA members personally and I'm too lazy to google for one. Do it yourself.
I'm sure you have firsthand experience to know that's true.
I'm not afraid of the dong, myself, I just prefer twat.
I think he meant nobody thinks everybody should have an abortion the way some people think everybody should have a gun.
And without those rights, the aggressors, who are breaking the law anyway and are less likely to care than you or I, will still have guns.
What then?
I suppose it helps that I'm a mere 5 minute drive (10 minute walk, traffic's a bitch) from the plant. It's my understanding, however, form friends and colleagues much farther away from the plant than myself that my experience is par for the course.
It helps that Cox is a franchise and my local franchise is actually locally owned and operated. Each Cox franchise is its own private company, with its own infrastructure; I guess it must just be easier to maintain a lot of smaller networks than it is to keep track of one large one.
Again, how an ISP should be run.
As long as I can't tell they're oversold, that's fine with me, they may as well not be oversold. I've run tests every time of day, on holidays, on work days, on weekends, anytime a service or site feels slow to me. I'm always getting what I should be getting.
It is possible to use more bandwidth than is available to you; I can do this in two ways with my ISP, actually. First of all, I can burst my line above 1Mbps upstream for a longer than reasonable period of time (which I've come to find is only an issue if there are connections to or from multiple addresses), which causes me to use more than my fair share of bandwidth. I can also take on more requests than my connection can handle. Rest assured that, if the level of incoming requests were burst my connection to full capacity (over 30Mbps), for a long period of time, somebody would take notice.
Were I to rate-limit my upstream, at the router, to 1Mbps and my downstream to 12Mbps (QoS allows for this) to avoid bursting, I could run my connection maxed out 24x7 and my ISP wouldn't give a damn.
That is how it should be done; grow to meet demands. If you become unprofitable, you should have had more foresight. Just never, EVER, screw the customer because you made a bad decision. going out of business is not a form of screwing the customer, they can always find another provider.
Oops, I forgot to say the following: My ISP offers 1500/256k, 12/1m and 20/2m service and is averse to the idea of throttling or capping. These issues don't affect me as long as I am with this ISP, who, by the way, has very reasonable prices for what they offer. I'd say $45 for a 12/2 line that I can't tell shared at the node is a pretty damn good deal; given that I can burst it to over 30Mbps when I really need (want) to.
I, honestly, have my internet. I love it; and I will continue to give this ISP (cable provider) as much of my hard earned money as I can afford to, so long as they remain as morally strong on these issues as they have been in the past and are currently. That's right, I'm voting with my wallet. I've written (and hand-delivered, they're 5min from me) their CEO a letter to this effect, as well and was assured by him directly that they were prepared to take as much of my money as I could afford to give them.
I love his sense of humor, as well as his business savvy. That's why I'm his customer and will be for the foreseeable future. It's nice to hear, directly from the man at the top, that my service will only get better.
Then I wrote the letter, my $45 was netting me 6000/512. The same $45 now pays for the line mentioned above. I can even run a server (forbidden by TOS, yes), provided that I don't let things get out of control. Again, per the CEO, this is how they enforce their TOS; they'll block the port it's running on and give me a phone call if it becomes an issue.
This is how an ISP should be run. Period.
I pay for 12/1, I get 12/1, burstable to faster than 30/2 (I've seen 33/2.2). There's a no servers clause in the TOS only to cover them if they NEED to block a port because a server is using too much BW; then they call and let you know they did it. Speeds and reliability are awesome and always improving.
Power dropped for a few hours for an area covering 3 cities (including the cable plant). My modem and router are on a UPS, I was online the whole time. I powered up a portable TV; yup, cable was still up.
I'll say it again: This is how an ISP should be run. Period.