Ubiquitous WiFi, Seattle style

[Paul Miner]

I've been in Seattle for the past two months, smack dab in the heart of the
Lower Queen Anne district. WiFi is almost everywhere here, and that's the
good news.

Now the bad news. My hotel has free WiFi, but throughput is pitiful. At
best, I see about 70 kilobits per second, (spelled out to avoid
misinterpretation), with long periods of zero throughput. Average throughput
is probably around 20 kbps, but that's not fair because it spikes and
stalls, spikes and stalls, etc. Email works OK, and web pages load on the
first try about half the time, but they can be reloaded as many times as it
takes to get a full page. Skype is completely out of the question. For a
hotel that costs $175 a night (after corporate discount), you'd think they
could do better. I see 3 Cisco AP's per floor, times 6 floors and about 40
units per floor. Not enough AP's and not enough bandwidth, I'm thinking.

This area is loaded with restaurants, bars, and coffee shops, and most of
them have WiFi. Some places have the key posted where you can see it, (it
seems to change daily, which is not a problem), while others make you ask
for the key. Aside: many restaurant restrooms have keycode doorknobs, so
before you head to the restroom you need to ask for the code, which is a
good time to ask for the WiFi key.)

What I've found is that, even in a land with lots of WiFi, it's entirely
unusable out on the sidewalk, and it's frequently unusable inside the
restaurant or coffee shop. I can connect, but I can't retrieve email
reliably or load web pages on the first try at most locations.

When I think about how impossible it was to find WiFi in Kansas City, Omaha,
Oklahoma City, Dallas, and San Antonio, compared to how easily I can find
WiFi here, I marvel at the fact that having extremely crappy WiFi is really
not much different from not having it at all.

As most of us know, "ubiquitous WiFi" is a complete joke.

--
Paul Miner

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Paul Miner:

>When I think about how impossible it was to find WiFi in Kansas City, Omaha,
>Oklahoma City, Dallas, and San Antonio, compared to how easily I can find
>WiFi here, I marvel at the fact that having extremely crappy WiFi is really
>not much different from not having it at all.
>
>As most of us know, "ubiquitous WiFi" is a complete joke.

I notice another little twist: blocking certain types of access.

At the local for-profit hospital here in Paoli PA (USA), they have had
"free wi-fi" almost since day 1. But the last time I had occasion to
be there: I couldn't check my email at work, I couldn't TeamViewer into
my work PC to check something, and on-and-on. Bring up some harmless
web page? No problem... but actually *do* something, No Way Jose'.

I wonder if, in some cases, it's coming down to:

- Marketing the perception of "Free WiFi" but minimizing
expenses

and/or

- The system administrator mind set of "I can have great
numbers at review time, all we need to do is keep
people from using the system."
--
Pete Cresswell

[Justin]

Indeed. This is an often overlooked problem. In many cases only port 80
and 443 are allowed, and even then many sites are blocked. In many cases
I have not been able to connect to VPN servers.

Even reading something harmless like fark.com gets blocked in many, many
places.

[SMS]

On 03/27/2013 06:18 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Per Paul Miner:
>> When I think about how impossible it was to find WiFi in Kansas City, Omaha,
>> Oklahoma City, Dallas, and San Antonio, compared to how easily I can find
>> WiFi here, I marvel at the fact that having extremely crappy WiFi is really
>> not much different from not having it at all.
>>
>> As most of us know, "ubiquitous WiFi" is a complete joke.
>
> I notice another little twist: blocking certain types of access.
>
> At the local for-profit hospital here in Paoli PA (USA), they have had
> "free wi-fi" almost since day 1. But the last time I had occasion to
> be there: I couldn't check my email at work, I couldn't TeamViewer into
> my work PC to check something, and on-and-on. Bring up some harmless
> web page? No problem... but actually *do* something, No Way Jose'.

As long as they have not blocked VPN access you can get around all that.
You should never be using public Wi-Fi without VPN anyway.

At my son's school they block sites like Facebook. I understand why, but
by the same token a lot of actual information is passed to students on
Facebook. I.e. for marching band, information on practices, special
events, etc. is posted on Facebook as well as being e-mailed. It's much
more likely that students will see the Facebook stuff than read their
e-mail.

I've spent a lot of time in the Seattle area for work and for
conventions. The Wi-Fi access is excellent. It rivals Silicon Valley.
It's in the top five list of Wi-Fi friendly cities in the U.S..

A single hotel with slow data rates is not a statistically significant
sample. But everyone here knew that (I hope)!

[XS11E]

Paul Miner <pmi...@elrancho.invalid> wrote:

> As most of us know, "ubiquitous WiFi" is a complete joke.

Most of us know no such thing. I find free WiFi is "ubiquitous" and
works perfectly every where I've ever used it but I've never tried in
Seattle....

--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

[SMS]

On 03/27/2013 09:27 AM, XS11E wrote:
> Paul Miner <pmi...@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>> As most of us know, "ubiquitous WiFi" is a complete joke.
>
> Most of us know no such thing. I find free WiFi is "ubiquitous" and
> works perfectly every where I've ever used it but I've never tried in
> Seattle....

"most of us know" ranks right up there with Faux News' "some people say"
as a statement to use when you are making a false statement.

There are definitely hotels with slow Wi-Fi networks, but to imply that
this means anything at all in a city that is consistently in the top ten
cities in terms of free Wi-Fi availability, is ludicrous, "as most of us
know."

[Jason Bourne]

Bitch, bitch, bitch...how's about some cheese and crackers with your whine?

--
The second amendment wasn't written so we could go hunting. It was
written so we could shoot at the government if it was ever taken over by
tyrants.
--Judge Napolitano

[Justin]

How does one relate to the other? The 10 best could stil have little to no
connectivity

[Justin]

XS11E wrote on [Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:27:49 -0700]:
> Paul Miner <pmi...@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>> As most of us know, "ubiquitous WiFi" is a complete joke.
>
> Most of us know no such thing. I find free WiFi is "ubiquitous" and
> works perfectly every where I've ever used it but I've never tried in
> Seattle....

"ubiquitous" nice... IOW, not ubiquitous

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per SMS:

>As long as they have not blocked VPN access you can get around all that.
>You should never be using public Wi-Fi without VPN anyway.

Could you add a little to that - enough to get me Googling?

For me, all I know about VPN is that I have to use it to RDP to my PC at
one of my customers' sites - and that it blocks access by my home PC to
the local network while the connection is in effect.

--
Pete Cresswell

[Justin]

Exactly, you are effectively on the remote network, doing stuff they allow you
to on that remote network.

So, if you setup a VPN on your home network, and the WiFi provider allows
VPN sessions, you can VPN to your home network and act as if your computer
is on your home network.

[Paul Miner]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:07:23 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>I've spent a lot of time in the Seattle area for work and for
>conventions. The Wi-Fi access is excellent. It rivals Silicon Valley.
>It's in the top five list of Wi-Fi friendly cities in the U.S..

Yikes. If you think Seattle's WiFi is 'excellent', your standards aren't
even in the same universe as mine.

Thanks for confirming that Seattle's abysmal WiFi situation is actually no
worse than Silicon Valley, which until now was the benchmark by which I was
comparing other areas. Knowing that, I can now say with full confidence that
"ubiquitous WiFi" is a much bigger joke than I had imagined.

>A single hotel with slow data rates is not a statistically significant
>sample. But everyone here knew that (I hope)!

You might want to go back and read my report again, especially if you think
it was based on a single hotel.

--
Paul Miner

[Paul Miner]

On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:27:49 -0700, XS11E <xs1...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>Paul Miner <pmi...@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>> As most of us know, "ubiquitous WiFi" is a complete joke.
>
>Most of us know no such thing. I find free WiFi is "ubiquitous" and
>works perfectly every where I've ever used it but I've never tried in
>Seattle....

I don't believe you. My experiences have indicated exactly the opposite.

--
Paul Miner

[Paul Miner]

I believe "VPN split tunnel" will get you pointed in the right direction.

--
Paul Miner

[nob...@nada.com]

Exactly. Your personal experiences differ. Big surprise. Who's got
data? And where is it you can't find a Starbucks?

[Paul Miner]

Starbucks? What does that have to do with anything? OK, taking your lead,
there seem to be approximately 11,000 Starbucks locations in the US, a
number that's apparently declining slowly in recent years.
<http://www.statisticbrain.com/starbucks-company-statistics/>

How many would there have to be before WiFi via Starbucks would be
reasonably convenient? 11 million? 111 million? 11 billion? How many
locations would it take to equal the coverage of a decent nationwide cell
provider?

Examine Steven's usage scenario, though, and watch it fall apart before your
eyes. He starts with hotel WiFi in the morning, which for him is always good
or excellent. His next mention is a mid-morning coffee shop, followed by
lunch at McDonald's. Mid-afternoon brings another break at a coffee shop,
followed by dinner at a restaurant that offers WiFi, then it's back to the
hotel and the warm cozy WiFi that they provide. If that sounds ridiculous,
it's because it is. If you want Internet access just a few times a day and
are willing to travel to get it, and if you don't care how badly it
performs, then fine, but that's not my world at all.

For me, and for most people I know, it's not available if it doesn't exist
where you are when you need it, and when you do find it, it still isn't
available if you can't use it for any reason. That includes WiFi that
doesn't have any appreciable throughput. 300 baud was acceptable at one
time, but not anymore.

--
Paul Miner

[nob...@nada.com]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 00:11:17 -0500, Paul Miner

<pmi...@elrancho.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:03:25 -0700, nob...@nada.com wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 15:45:49 -0500, Paul Miner
>><pmi...@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:27:49 -0700, XS11E <xs1...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Paul Miner <pmi...@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As most of us know, "ubiquitous WiFi" is a complete joke.
>>>>
>>>>Most of us know no such thing. I find free WiFi is "ubiquitous" and
>>>>works perfectly every where I've ever used it but I've never tried in
>>>>Seattle....
>>>
>>>I don't believe you. My experiences have indicated exactly the opposite.
>>
>>Exactly. Your personal experiences differ. Big surprise. Who's got
>>data? And where is it you can't find a Starbucks?
>
>Starbucks? What does that have to do with anything? OK, taking your lead,
>there seem to be approximately 11,000 Starbucks locations in the US, a
>number that's apparently declining slowly in recent years.
><http://www.statisticbrain.com/starbucks-company-statistics/>
>
>How many would there have to be before WiFi via Starbucks would be
>reasonably convenient? 11 million? 111 million? 11 billion? How many
>locations would it take to equal the coverage of a decent nationwide cell
>provider?

If you are taking "wifi is ubiquitous" to mean it has the coverage of
a cell provider, then it's not ubiquitous. But if you want to enforce
the definition strictly, neither is cell phone service. If you have to
have access to wifi, there is almost always someplace not too far
away, coffee shop, hotel, library, truck stop, etc. where you can hook
up. If you expect to get wifi anywhere you are standing, you will be
disappointed, just as you will with cell phone service. For my
purposes, it's never far away.

>
>Examine Steven's usage scenario, though, and watch it fall apart before your
>eyes. He starts with hotel WiFi in the morning, which for him is always good
>or excellent. His next mention is a mid-morning coffee shop, followed by
>lunch at McDonald's. Mid-afternoon brings another break at a coffee shop,
>followed by dinner at a restaurant that offers WiFi, then it's back to the
>hotel and the warm cozy WiFi that they provide. If that sounds ridiculous,
>it's because it is. If you want Internet access just a few times a day and
>are willing to travel to get it, and if you don't care how badly it
>performs, then fine, but that's not my world at all.
>
>For me, and for most people I know, it's not available if it doesn't exist
>where you are when you need it, and when you do find it, it still isn't
>available if you can't use it for any reason. That includes WiFi that
>doesn't have any appreciable throughput. 300 baud was acceptable at one
>time, but not anymore.

No thing is available if it doesn't exist where you are when you need
it. Like gasoline, or do you have a tanker follow you around so it
will be there when you need it. How about food? Good luck with having
that the instant you need it. Try west Texas, for example.

If you need access to high speed data all the time, regardless of
where you are, you're still not going to be happy because o one has
that kind of coverage. So just buy what gets you closest to what you
think you need, pay the big cost, and stop whining that wifi doesn't
do what you need.

[Justin]

nob...@nada.com wrote on [Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:38:41 -0700]:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 00:11:17 -0500, Paul Miner
> <pmi...@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
> If you are taking "wifi is ubiquitous" to mean it has the coverage of
> a cell provider, then it's not ubiquitous.

That is exactly what SMS is claiming

> the definition strictly, neither is cell phone service. If you have to
> have access to wifi, there is almost always someplace not too far
> away, coffee shop, hotel, library, truck stop, etc. where you can hook
> up. If you expect to get wifi anywhere you are standing, you will be
> disappointed, just as you will with cell phone service. For my
> purposes, it's never far away.

At many hotels you must be a guest. At many libraries you must be a member.

The claim is that wifi is available where people need it. Therefore no
traveling is required

> No thing is available if it doesn't exist where you are when you need
> it. Like gasoline, or do you have a tanker follow you around so it
> will be there when you need it. How about food? Good luck with having
> that the instant you need it. Try west Texas, for example.

My car has a tank, which I can transport fuel in. My cooler can hold
food.

> that kind of coverage. So just buy what gets you closest to what you
> think you need, pay the big cost, and stop whining that wifi doesn't
> do what you need.

Unfortunately THAT'S NOT THE POINT!

The claim is that wifi is available enough that it IS available where
you need it.

[Paul Miner]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:31:09 +0000 (UTC), Justin <nos...@insightbb.com>
wrote:

It's as if words have entirely different meanings for some people. They
don't seem to mind how ridiculous they look arguing from such a foolish
position. I wonder what the agenda is.

I'll be in Chicago, Detroit, and Boston during the next 6-8 weeks, and I
think Charlotte and Atlanta after that. I'll bet one of those cities will
have the ever elusive ubiquitous WiFi, but maybe not.

--
Paul Miner

[Richard B. Gilbert]

I'm sure that, if I cared to travel to those cities, I could find WiFi.
I'm also sure that I could places in those cities where where WiFi is
NOT available!

So you have to walk 500 feet find to get a useable signal. Is WiFi
available? Or not? Ubiquitous? Or not?

If enough customers complain that there is no signal at a particular
location, the provider will almost certainly make an effort to provide it!

[Paul Miner]

Hi Richard,
You're usually the last to catch on to something, so the fact that you get
this is very encouraging. I totally agree with you. If a person is
determined, they can usually find WiFi in a city, but that was never the
point. One person claims that WiFi is ubiquitous, but over time it became
clear that he didn't know what ubiquitous means. If you have to travel to
find it, or in other words if it isn't available where you need it when you
need it, then it can hardly be called ubiquitous. Most of us have long ago
figured that out, so now it's just a case of beating him over the head with
his own words.

>So you have to walk 500 feet find to get a useable signal. Is WiFi
>available? Or not? Ubiquitous? Or not?

Using your example, 500 feet is a bit under two blocks. Not a big deal, but
WiFi doesn't exactly scream out its location, so it's entirely possible that
you have no idea that it's 2 blocks away. It might as well be a mile away.
Even if I told you that WiFi was available 2 blocks away, would you walk 2
blocks in the right direction? If not, now you're 4 blocks away and you
still don't see it. If it was ubiquitous, as one guy claims, you wouldn't
have this problem. Period.

>If enough customers complain that there is no signal at a particular
>location, the provider will almost certainly make an effort to provide it!

When it comes to WiFi, who is "the provider"? Walk 20 feet and it's someone
different. There's no pressure when the sphere of coverage is that small.

In my experience, which I've mentioned before, most owners of small stores,
non-chain coffee shops, bars, restaurants, etc., have long ago stopped
providing WiFi for at least two reasons: it's a headache to maintain, and
most people have data plans through their cell providers. There's no longer
any incentive to provide WiFi. That's why you see so little of it being
offered anymore. (Outside of the San Francisco Bay Area, anyway. From what I
hear, it's still available around there.)

--
Paul Miner

[SMS]

On 3/29/2013 1:38 PM, nob...@nada.com wrote:

> If you are taking "wifi is ubiquitous" to mean it has the coverage of
> a cell provider, then it's not ubiquitous. But if you want to enforce
> the definition strictly, neither is cell phone service. If you have to
> have access to wifi, there is almost always someplace not too far
> away, coffee shop, hotel, library, truck stop, etc. where you can hook
> up. If you expect to get wifi anywhere you are standing, you will be
> disappointed, just as you will with cell phone service. For my
> purposes, it's never far away.

I can also point out places where there is Wi-Fi but no cell service.

The bottom line is for most users, there's no urgency in uploading those
3MP photos from the phone's camera to Facebook, and no need to stream
hundreds of MB per day of Internet radio over 3G or 4G data.

I use mobile data when there's no Wi-Fi and it's necessary to do so,
i.e. to check e-mail, to add money to my kid's prepaid card, to do web
searches, etc.--low bandwidth stuff. But I don't stream video or audio
or upload photos--those can wait.

It's all a question of how you want to spend your money.

I would not make a special trip to find Wi-Fi, if I need web access and
there's no Wi-Fi I'll use mobile data. OTOH I would probably not choose
a hotel that did not provide Wi-Fi at no extra cost, and in some cases
one criteria of choosing a restaurant might be the availability of Wi-Fi.

One thing that's contributed to the exponential increase in Wi-Fi
availability is the fact that most tablets that are sold are Wi-Fi only.
The carriers were disappointed that so few 3G/4G tablets were sold but
it was basically their fault since consumers were suffering from "fee
fatigue" and the carriers were gouging. Now they've made things somewhat
fairer, but given the wide availability of Wi-Fi, paying even $10 per
month to add a tablet to a share plan seems like too much for many
tablet users.

[AL]

Paul Miner <pmi...@elrancho.invalid> wrote:

>In my experience, which I've mentioned before, most owners of small stores,
>non-chain coffee shops, bars, restaurants, etc., have long ago stopped
>providing WiFi for at least two reasons: it's a headache to maintain, and
>most people have data plans through their cell providers.

A third reason might be that WiFi often creates table hogs. On a busy
day when tables are at a premium I would think they may reduce the
profit per table, not increase it.

[AL]

SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> paying even $10 per month to add a tablet to a share
>plan seems like too much for many tablet users.

Course they don't have to pay the extra $10/mo for a WiFi only tablet
if they don't want to. With the Verizon Share plans there is no longer
any charge for tethering.

[nob...@nada.com]

On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:31:09 +0000 (UTC), Justin
<nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:

>nob...@nada.com wrote on [Fri, 29 Mar 2013 13:38:41 -0700]:
>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 00:11:17 -0500, Paul Miner
>> <pmi...@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> If you are taking "wifi is ubiquitous" to mean it has the coverage of
>> a cell provider, then it's not ubiquitous.
>
>That is exactly what SMS is claiming
>
>> the definition strictly, neither is cell phone service. If you have to
>> have access to wifi, there is almost always someplace not too far
>> away, coffee shop, hotel, library, truck stop, etc. where you can hook
>> up. If you expect to get wifi anywhere you are standing, you will be
>> disappointed, just as you will with cell phone service. For my
>> purposes, it's never far away.
>
>At many hotels you must be a guest. At many libraries you must be a member.
>
>The claim is that wifi is available where people need it. Therefore no
>traveling is required
>
>> No thing is available if it doesn't exist where you are when you need
>> it. Like gasoline, or do you have a tanker follow you around so it
>> will be there when you need it. How about food? Good luck with having
>> that the instant you need it. Try west Texas, for example.
>
>My car has a tank, which I can transport fuel in. My cooler can hold
>food.

For both of those things, either you have an idea you will need it and
take it with you, or don't and still need it when it's not readily
available.

And how do you take that port-a-potty with you?

[Justin]

SMS wrote on [Sun, 31 Mar 2013 06:16:27 -0700]:
> On 3/29/2013 1:38 PM, nob...@nada.com wrote:
>
> The bottom line is for most users, there's no urgency in uploading those
> 3MP photos from the phone's camera to Facebook, and no need to stream
> hundreds of MB per day of Internet radio over 3G or 4G data.

How do you really see "most users"? Most users are people that need access
to email, SMS replacement apps etc. where they are. Not down the road

> One thing that's contributed to the exponential increase in Wi-Fi
> availability is the fact that most tablets that are sold are Wi-Fi only.
> The carriers were disappointed that so few 3G/4G tablets were sold but
> it was basically their fault since consumers were suffering from "fee
> fatigue" and the carriers were gouging. Now they've made things somewhat
> fairer, but given the wide availability of Wi-Fi, paying even $10 per
> month to add a tablet to a share plan seems like too much for many
> tablet users.

How have phone providers made anything fairer? They have forced everyone onto
unlimited text plans that add 20 or more dollars per month.
Verizon has removed discounts from the least expensive data plans that cost
the same as their original data plans.

Moving from an existing family plan with an unlimited data plan would cost
over $30 more a month for this household of 2.

[Justin]

nob...@nada.com wrote on [Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:09:38 -0700]:
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:31:09 +0000 (UTC), Justin
> <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>My car has a tank, which I can transport fuel in. My cooler can hold
>>food.
>
> For both of those things, either you have an idea you will need it and
> take it with you, or don't and still need it when it's not readily
> available.

I have the option of bringing those with me, I can't bring wifi with me.

> And how do you take that port-a-potty with you?

It's called a tree, or a shovel.

[sms]

On 3/31/2013 10:09 AM, nob...@nada.com wrote:

> For both of those things, either you have an idea you will need it and
> take it with you, or don't and still need it when it's not readily
> available.

The bottom line is that Wi-Fi is usually available when you really need
it (large downloads or uploads) and 3G/4G is available for when you're
out and about and there is no Wi-Fi. Of course in some places there is
Wi-Fi and no 3G/4G.

[nob...@nada.com]

On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 18:40:04 +0000 (UTC), Justin <nos...@insightbb.com>

wrote:

>nob...@nada.com wrote on [Sun, 31 Mar 2013 10:09:38 -0700]:
>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 23:31:09 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>> <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>My car has a tank, which I can transport fuel in. My cooler can hold
>>>food.
>>
>> For both of those things, either you have an idea you will need it and
>> take it with you, or don't and still need it when it's not readily
>> available.
>
>I have the option of bringing those with me, I can't bring wifi with me.
>
>
>> And how do you take that port-a-potty with you?
>
>It's called a tree, or a shovel.
>

So you are willing to go make a stop for gas, load up a cooler, and
take a shovel with you (what do you wipe with in the desert), but
expect to have wifi just be there wherever you are. Got it.

[Justin]

No, I don't expect that. That's the point.

[tlvp]

On Mon, 1 Apr 2013 18:40:04 +0000 (UTC), Justin wrote:

... [port-a-potty] ...

> It's called a tree, or a shovel.

Or a Texas catheter, or a colostomy bag. Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[SMS]

This is true, thanks to the courts. Kind of a kludge though.

I don't really miss mobile data on my Android tablet. With so much
Wi-Fi, it's not all that often that I need mobile data, but if I really
do then I have the Android phone.

I have mapping on both devices with stored maps (Copilot) which works
much better on the tablet version than on the phone version. Live
mapping is a big data hog.

[AL]

SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 03/30/2013 11:52 PM, AL wrote:

>> SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>>> paying even $10 per month to add a tablet to a share
>>> plan seems like too much for many tablet users.

>> Course they don't have to pay the extra $10/mo for a tablet

>> if they don't want to. With the Verizon Share plans there is no longer
>> any charge for tethering.

I should add: *Except* for those clinging to their
Verizon Unlimited plans.

>Kind of a kludge though.

How so? If you carry a tablet around aren't you normally going to be
carrying a phone too? And wouldn't tethering be worth it to save the
considerable extra expense of buying a 3G/4G tablet + the 10/mo
Verizon tablet fee?

>I don't really miss mobile data on my Android tablet.

I don't carry a tablet around when I'm out and about either. Too
bulky.The small phone screen does just fine for me and it fits much
better in the pocket too.

> With so much Wi-Fi, it's not all that often that I need mobile data, but if I really
>do then I have the Android phone.

Exactly. If you find one of those rare spots with no WiFi then you can
just switch on tethering and continue using your tablet.

>I have mapping on both devices with stored maps (Copilot) which works
>much better on the tablet version than on the phone version. Live
>mapping is a big data hog.

With the high price of mobile data it's always wise to conserve any
way you can. But I doubt that you only look at your maps all day...

[Paul Miner]

I suppose you meant to say that the bottom line FOR YOU is that WiFi is
usually available where YOU need it. You aren't qualified to speak for me,
especially since my experience is about the polar opposite of yours.

--
Paul Miner

[Paul Miner]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 07:27:40 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>I don't really miss mobile data on my Android tablet. With so much
>Wi-Fi, it's not all that often that I need mobile data, but if I really
>do then I have the Android phone.

Just wait till you leave the Bay Area. Then you'll be wishing you had mobile
data.

--
Paul Miner

[Justin]

AL wrote on [Tue, 02 Apr 2013 19:35:03 -0700]:
> Exactly. If you find one of those rare spots with no WiFi then you can
> just switch on tethering and continue using your tablet.

Yes, those so rare spots that encompass the vast majority of the country
and world.

[SMS]

1. I often leave the Bay Area. Wi-Fi is widely available outside the Bay
Area too.

2. I have mobile data. I use it when necessary.

But you already knew all this.

[crkeehn]

"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:515bafd5$0$52745$742e...@news.sonic.net...

Widely is a relative term. I will admit that I am seeing more wifi in my
area than I did two years ago, but the majority of wifi access sites I'm
seeing are secured. Doesn't do a person a lot of good if they don't have
the logon information.

[sms]

On 4/3/2013 3:12 AM, crkeehn wrote:

> Widely is a relative term. I will admit that I am seeing more wifi in my
> area than I did two years ago, but the majority of wifi access sites I'm
> seeing are secured. Doesn't do a person a lot of good if they don't have
> the logon information.

You have to make the distinction between "secured" and "free." You see a
lot of restaurants and hotels where the network is secure but they
provide the password to customers. Of course libraries are usually free,
even to those without a library card.

To characterize free Wi-Fi as a Bay Area phenomenon, or even a U.S.
phenomenon is incorrect.

[Justin]

sms wrote on [Wed, 03 Apr 2013 05:01:05 -0700]:
> To characterize free Wi-Fi as a Bay Area phenomenon, or even a U.S.
> phenomenon is incorrect.

to characterise it as ubiquitous is nothing but a lie

[Todd Allcock]

That's why I'm hoping T-Mo does well with their new "UNcarrier" plan.
They've completely separated service from hardware, and no longer require
contracts. Service is cheap, and hardware is unsubsidized (though T-Mo
offers "free" financing to lower the upfront cost of the phone.)

$50 gets unlimited voice, messaging, and slow data (500MB full speed,
then unlimited throttled). An extra 2GB of full-speed data is $10,
unlimited full speed is $20. Second line for family plans is $30, then
$10 for lines 3-5 and $10.

I'm just about ready to switch from my grandfathered plan to this,
despite losing my $6 unlimited data, since it'll let me add cheap lines
for the kids, who are currently using prepaid, since I can't economically
add any lines to my grandfathered plan.

I realize T-Mo's comparably weak coverage isn't for everyone, but
hopefully they'll do well enough with this that competitive pressure
forces other carriers to react with better rates and/or data plans.

[XS11E]

Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

> I realize T-Mo's comparably weak coverage isn't for everyone,

I tried for a year but had to give it up due to poor coverage where
needed. WiFi IS ubiquitous (for everyone except Paul Miner) but my
toolkit includes a credit card and a VZW cellphone. WiFi is NOT
available along side the road in the middle of the Mojave desert, VZW
is. Now that my travelling days are behind me I may consider T-Mobile
again.

> but hopefully they'll do well enough with this that competitive
> pressure forces other carriers to react with better rates and/or
> data plans.

I really doubt it but it's a nice dream... I believe AT&T and VZW
really don't care what T-Mobile does and Sprint is only concerned with
trying to stay alive another week.....

If AT&T and/or VZW start losing customers to T-Mo they'll react but not
until then, IMHO.



--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/

[Justin]

XS11E wrote on [Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:24:24 -0700]:
> Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
>> I realize T-Mo's comparably weak coverage isn't for everyone,
>
> I tried for a year but had to give it up due to poor coverage where
> needed. WiFi IS ubiquitous (for everyone except Paul Miner)

No, it isn't. It's not available in most restaurants.

I know it's hard to understand, but even using a loose definition of
"it's available where I need it", it fails miserably.
Adding in the requirement that it works well enough to use and isn't
actively blocking services you need to use, like VPN for example,
and it drops even more.

[sms]

On 4/3/2013 11:37 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:

> I realize T-Mo's comparably weak coverage isn't for everyone, but
> hopefully they'll do well enough with this that competitive pressure
> forces other carriers to react with better rates and/or data plans.

I hope that's the case, but Verizon, and to a lesser extent AT&T, seem
well aware that their networks allow them to charge a premium.

Ting looks interesting too. It's on Sprint, but includes roaming for
voice and text onto other CDMA networks. They have family plans, each
extra device is $6.

I think that the $30/month T-Mobile plan (5GB 3G/unlimited throttled) is
a good deal. If you need more than 100 minutes then you can couple it
with a VOIP service. However T-Mobile is shutting down 2G data so I
wonder how that $30 plan is going to work in the future. No 4G LTE.

[nob...@nada.com]

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 12:35:22 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

The T-Mobile $30 plan is 4G where it is available, up to 5GB. I get 4G
speeds on Speedtest in most urban areas where T-Mobile shows 4G
coverage. Even if you use 200 minutes, it's only $40 and only when
you actually need it. I mostly use GrooveIP or Talkatone to call
through Google Voice. It's not quite as good as a regular cellular
connection but is good enough. The only real drawback is no roaming
but we can always fall back on my wife's PagePlus phone.

[sms]

On 4/4/2013 5:55 PM, nob...@nada.com wrote:

> The T-Mobile $30 plan is 4G where it is available, up to 5GB.

Are you saying that it's LTE, or that it's 3G (HSDPA) which T-Mobile
calls 4G?

I just wonder what happens to the $30 plan in terms of throttling when
T-Mobile turns off EDGE, i.e.
<http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1794470-T-Mobile-turned-OFF-2g-but-added-4g-(2g-dead-zone)-Milwaukee-Area?s=c4a16b47af572e937eeb1691ad997999>.
Do you just lose all data, or do they have to provide you with HSDPA?
Maybe the plan will morph to 5GB of LTE then throttle to HSDPA--wouldn't
that be nice. Couple that with a global phone that can be on the
T-Mobile $30 plan most of the time, but that can also be activated on
Page Plus on the CDMA side for when T-Mobile has no coverage.

[XS11E]

Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:

> XS11E wrote on [Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:24:24 -0700]:
>> WiFi IS ubiquitous (for everyone except Paul Miner)

> No, it isn't. It's not available in most restaurants.

Yes, it is. Most chain restaurants offer it and so do most
independents around here. I get WiFi at almost all the places I eat.

Those that I know of with free WiFi outnumber those without.

[sms]

On 4/5/2013 8:15 AM, XS11E wrote:

<snip>

> Yes, it is. Most chain restaurants offer it and so do most
> independents around here. I get WiFi at almost all the places I eat.
>
> Those that I know of with free WiFi outnumber those without.

I'd say about 90% of restaurants I eat at have Wi-Fi, and I rarely eat
at chains. This is not limited to Silicon Valley either. I've
experienced the same thing in most cities I've visited in Minnesota,
Florida, Oregon, Washington, Washington D.C., New York, South Florida,
North Florida, etc.

One of our favorite restaurants on the way to Yosemite is the Yosemite
Bug Cafe <http://www.yelp.com/biz/cafe-at-the-bug-midpines>. No mobile
data coverage in the restaurant, but pretty good Wi-Fi. At some places
on the property you can get enough bars to make a phone call (CDMA only)
on Golden State Cellular; no T-Mobile coverage of course, and AT&T shows
"moderate" but doesn't reach down in the valley where it's located
(37.578,-119.952).

What is the upside of those making these ridiculous claims that Wi-Fi is
not ubiquitous? If it makes them feel better they can change it to
"nearly ubiquitous" or "widespread."

<http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/02/tokyo-metro-finishes-rolling-out-wifi-at-its-train-stations/>

<http://www.wgil.com/localnews.php?xnewsaction=fullnews&newsarch=042013&newsid=51>

<http://blog.laptopmag.com/blackberry-z10-users-now-get-free-wi-fi-during-domestic-flights>

<http://www.mauitime.com/Articles-News-i-2013-04-04-77305.113117-Queen-Kaahumanu-Center-Now-Offering-Free-WiFi-Access.html>

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/santa-clara-free-wifi_n_2964653.html>

<http://www.futuretravelexperience.com/2013/04/unlimited-free-wifi-for-aberdeen-airports-passengers/>

[Justin]

XS11E wrote on [Fri, 05 Apr 2013 08:15:53 -0700]:
> Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> XS11E wrote on [Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:24:24 -0700]:
>>> WiFi IS ubiquitous (for everyone except Paul Miner)
>
>> No, it isn't. It's not available in most restaurants.
>
> Yes, it is. Most chain restaurants offer it and so do most
> independents around here. I get WiFi at almost all the places I eat.

Never seen wifi at an indy buffet style place. Not available in Longhorn,
Outback, O'Charley's, Texas Roadhouse etc.

Not available at most of the local joints that aren't coffee joints

[Justin]

sms wrote on [Fri, 05 Apr 2013 08:48:34 -0700]:
> What is the upside of those making these ridiculous claims that Wi-Fi is

> ubiquitous?

> <http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/02/tokyo-metro-finishes-rolling-out-wifi-at-its-train-stations/>

Tokyo train stations help people in the midwest how?

> <http://www.wgil.com/localnews.php?xnewsaction=fullnews&newsarch=042013&newsid=51>

A couple of blocks of a city. wow..

> <http://blog.laptopmag.com/blackberry-z10-users-now-get-free-wi-fi-during-domestic-flights>

wifi in a plane helps people on the ground, how?

[nob...@nada.com]

On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:26:15 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 4/4/2013 5:55 PM, nob...@nada.com wrote:
>
>> The T-Mobile $30 plan is 4G where it is available, up to 5GB.
>
>Are you saying that it's LTE, or that it's 3G (HSDPA) which T-Mobile
>calls 4G?

You are confusing LTE and 4G. And nobody has real 4G transfer rates.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20028622-266.html

What T-Mobile calls 4G is HSPA+ and, in real life, as good as most
LTE. The rate depends on the phone. My Nexus 4 gets HSPA+42.

I am looking at the transfer rates, not the name.

[sms]

On 4/5/2013 6:49 PM, nob...@nada.com wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:26:15 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/4/2013 5:55 PM, nob...@nada.com wrote:
>>
>>> The T-Mobile $30 plan is 4G where it is available, up to 5GB.
>>
>> Are you saying that it's LTE, or that it's 3G (HSDPA) which T-Mobile
>> calls 4G?
>
> You are confusing LTE and 4G. And nobody has real 4G transfer rates.
>
> http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20028622-266.html
>
> What T-Mobile calls 4G is HSPA+ and, in real life, as good as most
> LTE. The rate depends on the phone. My Nexus 4 gets HSPA+42.
>
> I am looking at the transfer rates, not the name.

LTE versus HSPA+42 makes a difference for two reasons.

First, because the average data speeds on T-Mobile's HSDPA network are
still much slower than that of Verizon or AT&T LTE, and second, because
it makes a difference in handset selection and plan selection on T-Mobile.

So the question remains, on the $30, 5GB fast then unlimited slow, does
the "fast" include LTE or is it only HSDPA?

[nob...@nada.com]

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 06:43:10 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>

wrote:

>On 4/5/2013 6:49 PM, nob...@nada.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 18:26:15 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/4/2013 5:55 PM, nob...@nada.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> The T-Mobile $30 plan is 4G where it is available, up to 5GB.
>>>
>>> Are you saying that it's LTE, or that it's 3G (HSDPA) which T-Mobile
>>> calls 4G?
>>
>> You are confusing LTE and 4G. And nobody has real 4G transfer rates.
>>
>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20028622-266.html
>>
>> What T-Mobile calls 4G is HSPA+ and, in real life, as good as most
>> LTE. The rate depends on the phone. My Nexus 4 gets HSPA+42.
>>
>> I am looking at the transfer rates, not the name.
>
>LTE versus HSPA+42 makes a difference for two reasons.
>
>First, because the average data speeds on T-Mobile's HSDPA network are
>still much slower than that of Verizon or AT&T LTE, and second, because
>it makes a difference in handset selection and plan selection on T-Mobile.
>

The relative speeds of HSPA+42 vs LTE depend on carrier, phone,
location, what you are downloading and where from.

>So the question remains, on the $30, 5GB fast then unlimited slow, does
>the "fast" include LTE or is it only HSDPA?

Until a few days ago, T-Mobile had no LTE anywhere so the question is
moot. Most of the phones sold prior to then have no active LTE
radios, so no T-Mobile service at the moment has LTE regardless of
plan. You really need LTE, most will have to use another carrier, and
pay substantially more for it. Even HSPA+21 is more than adequate for
streaming video and music, and LTE sucks more battery.


As the link points out 4G is marketing hype.

[XS11E]

nob...@nada.com wrote:

> As the link points out 4G is marketing hype.

Exactly. 4G means forth generation, nothing more, nothing to do with
speed. There are NO speed standards for 4G (There ARE standards for
the LTE and WiMax varities of 4G. The linked article says that but
fails to make it very clear IMHO.)

If a new technology comes along it'll correctly be called 5G even if it
runs half the speed of 2G!

[nob...@nada.com]

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 10:14:56 -0700, XS11E <xs1...@SPAMyahoo.com>
wrote:

>nob...@nada.com wrote:
>
>> As the link points out 4G is marketing hype.
>
>Exactly. 4G means forth generation, nothing more, nothing to do with
>speed. There are NO speed standards for 4G (There ARE standards for
>the LTE and WiMax varities of 4G. The linked article says that but
>fails to make it very clear IMHO.)
>
>If a new technology comes along it'll correctly be called 5G even if it
>runs half the speed of 2G!

Another interesting link on this topic

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/01/technology/4g_myth/index.htm

[Paul Miner]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 18:00:43 +0000 (UTC), Justin <nos...@insightbb.com>

I think XS11E was speaking code for, "I almost always eat at McDonald's."

--
Paul Miner

[Paul Miner]

On Fri, 5 Apr 2013 18:03:36 +0000 (UTC), Justin <nos...@insightbb.com>
wrote:

I think he realizes how foolish he looks, but in for a penny, in for a
pound, I guess. In true Navas style, he seems to think that repeating a
silly claim often enough will somehow make it true, or at least make it
believed to be true.

Meanwhile, I'm still looking for this ubiquitous WiFi I keep hearing about.
The list of cities where it's not true has gotten longer during the past
week, with Boston (especially including the suburbs to the north) and metro
Detroit now added to the list of places where you have to do some serious
hunting to find it. WiFi is ubiquitous like 1 is just a smaller value of 2.

--
Paul Miner

[Paul Miner]

On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 08:48:34 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>What is the upside of those making these ridiculous claims that Wi-Fi is
>not ubiquitous? If it makes them feel better they can change it to
>"nearly ubiquitous" or "widespread."

It really wouldn't make me "feel better" to take a completely untrue
statement and make it nearly completely untrue. WiFi doesn't suddenly become
available in more places just by changing an adjective.

><http://www.engadget.com/2013/04/02/tokyo-metro-finishes-rolling-out-wifi-at-its-train-stations/>
>
><http://www.wgil.com/localnews.php?xnewsaction=fullnews&newsarch=042013&newsid=51>
>
><http://blog.laptopmag.com/blackberry-z10-users-now-get-free-wi-fi-during-domestic-flights>
>
><http://www.mauitime.com/Articles-News-i-2013-04-04-77305.113117-Queen-Kaahumanu-Center-Now-Offering-Free-WiFi-Access.html>
>
><http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/santa-clara-free-wifi_n_2964653.html>
>
><http://www.futuretravelexperience.com/2013/04/unlimited-free-wifi-for-aberdeen-airports-passengers/>

Did you read any of those links prior to posting? If not, you should be
ashamed, but if so, you should be embarrassed. None do anything to bolster
your silly claims of <pick your adjective> WiFi.

--
Paul Miner

[Paul Miner]

On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 08:15:53 -0700, XS11E <xs1...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>I get WiFi at almost all the places I eat.

I sometimes eat at McDonald's too, but I really prefer not to. Hence, for
me, WiFi is _not_ available at most of the places where I eat.

--
Paul Miner

[Paul Miner]

On Thu, 4 Apr 2013 17:26:39 +0000 (UTC), Justin <nos...@insightbb.com>
wrote:

>XS11E wrote on [Thu, 04 Apr 2013 10:24:24 -0700]:
>> Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I realize T-Mo's comparably weak coverage isn't for everyone,
>>
>> I tried for a year but had to give it up due to poor coverage where
>> needed. WiFi IS ubiquitous (for everyone except Paul Miner)
>
>No, it isn't. It's not available in most restaurants.
>
>I know it's hard to understand, but even using a loose definition of
>"it's available where I need it", it fails miserably.

Of course "it's available where I need it" fails miserably, but a few (2?
3?) people don't seem to be bothered by that. I guess as long as they can
find WiFi two or three times in a day and don't mind doing some driving and
walking in the process, they're happy, not to mention that they don't seem
to mind the additional hoops they need to jump through after finding it. For
the rest of us, finding it is difficult and time consuming, and the hoops
are a PITA. Personally, I'm still holding out hope of finding an area where
it's ubiquitous (or even some really lame version of that). I haven't found
such an area yet.

I guess I'm supposed to just lower my standards. Instead of finding WiFi
where I happen to be when I need it, I guess I'm supposed to acknowledge
that driving around for a while or being willing to walk a few blocks is
just a natural part of it, but that really kills the ubiquitous nature of
it, thus killing the whole premise.

>Adding in the requirement that it works well enough to use and isn't
>actively blocking services you need to use, like VPN for example,
>and it drops even more.

Quite right. I don't find WiFi very often when I'm out and about, and
finding usable WiFi is much less common.

--
Paul Miner

[Paul Miner]

On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 13:35:21 +0000 (UTC), Justin <nos...@insightbb.com>
wrote:

That doesn't seem to bother them. I wonder what the agenda is?

--
Paul Miner

[Paul Miner]

On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 05:01:05 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 4/3/2013 3:12 AM, crkeehn wrote:
>
>> Widely is a relative term. I will admit that I am seeing more wifi in my
>> area than I did two years ago, but the majority of wifi access sites I'm
>> seeing are secured. Doesn't do a person a lot of good if they don't have
>> the logon information.
>
>You have to make the distinction between "secured" and "free." You see a
>lot of restaurants and hotels where the network is secure but they
>provide the password to customers. Of course libraries are usually free,
>even to those without a library card.

By the time you buy a few hotel rooms in a day, or meals at a half dozen
restaurants, you've paid way more for your 'free' WiFi than you would have
paid for a data plan. I realize some people aren't good at math, but this
much should be obvious. Besides, if there are enough libraries in your
limited travel area to satisfy your data needs, then your usage patterns and
expectations aren't in the same universe as mine.

>To characterize free Wi-Fi as a Bay Area phenomenon, or even a U.S.
>phenomenon is incorrect.

I thought we were talking about ubiquitous WiFi, but if you want to move the
discussion to free WiFi, how much area of any given city do you suppose is
covered by free WiFi? 1%? Less than 1%? I see why you stepped away from the
'u' word.

--
Paul Miner

[Paul Miner]

On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 21:28:06 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 04/02/2013 07:51 PM, Paul Miner wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Apr 2013 07:27:40 -0700, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't really miss mobile data on my Android tablet. With so much
>>> Wi-Fi, it's not all that often that I need mobile data, but if I really
>>> do then I have the Android phone.
>>
>> Just wait till you leave the Bay Area. Then you'll be wishing you had mobile
>> data.
>
>1. I often leave the Bay Area. Wi-Fi is widely available outside the Bay
>Area too.
>
>2. I have mobile data. I use it when necessary.
>
>But you already knew all this.

Yep, I'm aware of your claims. What I haven't figured out is your motivation
for making them. Most people back off when they're caught making up stories,
but you've decided to hang in there, Navas style. Kudos for the effort, I
guess.

--
Paul Miner

[XS11E]

I can't say if McDonalds has WiFi or not, I haven't eaten there. It's
very common in other restaurants. I have no idea where you eat, the
list shows 100s of places with WiFi in Seattle, many are restaurants
and hundreds of Seattle residents have no problem locating WiFi.

Sorry you're unable to find any, it's obvious your device has a
problem, either hardware or wetware.

[Justin]

XS11E wrote on [Sat, 06 Apr 2013 10:14:56 -0700]:
> nob...@nada.com wrote:
>
>> As the link points out 4G is marketing hype.
>
> Exactly. 4G means forth generation, nothing more, nothing to do with
> speed. There are NO speed standards for 4G (There ARE standards for

4G has official speed designations

In March 2008, the International Telecommunications Union-Radio communications sector (ITU-R) specified a set of requirements for 4G standards, named the International Mobile Telecommunications Advanced (IMT-Advanced) specification, setting peak speed requirements for 4G service at 100 megabits per second (Mbit/s) for high mobility communication (such as from trains and cars) and 1 gigabit per second (Gbit/s) for low mobility communication (such as pedestrians and stationary users).[1]

[Justin]

XS11E wrote on [Sun, 07 Apr 2013 23:19:05 -0700]:
> Paul Miner <pmi...@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 08:15:53 -0700, XS11E <xs1...@SPAMyahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I get WiFi at almost all the places I eat.
>>
>> I sometimes eat at McDonald's too, but I really prefer not to.
>> Hence, for me, WiFi is _not_ available at most of the places where
>> I eat.
>
> I can't say if McDonalds has WiFi or not, I haven't eaten there. It's
> very common in other restaurants. I have no idea where you eat, the
> list shows 100s of places with WiFi in Seattle, many are restaurants
> and hundreds of Seattle residents have no problem locating WiFi.

Of a city of over 4 million, only hundreds have no problem locating wifi?

Of thousands of restaurants only hundreds have wifi?

[nob...@nada.com]

On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:47:39 +0000 (UTC), Justin <nos...@insightbb.com>
wrote:

More like 4G had a speed designation until the carriers marketing
departments decided to turn the term into nonsense.

[sms]

On 4/7/2013 11:19 PM, XS11E wrote:
> Paul Miner <pmi...@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 08:15:53 -0700, XS11E <xs1...@SPAMyahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I get WiFi at almost all the places I eat.
>>
>> I sometimes eat at McDonald's too, but I really prefer not to.
>> Hence, for me, WiFi is _not_ available at most of the places where
>> I eat.
>
> I can't say if McDonalds has WiFi or not, I haven't eaten there. It's
> very common in other restaurants. I have no idea where you eat, the
> list shows 100s of places with WiFi in Seattle, many are restaurants
> and hundreds of Seattle residents have no problem locating WiFi.

Just ate at a hole in the wall fish taco Mexican place on Saturday. I
was unable to get the open Wi-Fi network to work. I asked the owner and
he said that I needed to use the secure Wi-Fi, the password was
"fishtaco" <http://www.yelp.com/biz/orale-fish-tacos-campbell>. Many
restaurants have secure Wi-Fi but they provide the password to patrons.

> Sorry you're unable to find any, it's obvious your device has a
> problem, either hardware or wetware.

That's likely the issue. He should get his devices serviced and perhaps
run some anti-malware programs. Also he may need to degauss the screen
<http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0087ZSKW0>.

[sms]

On 4/7/2013 10:43 PM, Paul Miner wrote:

> Yep, I'm aware of your claims. What I haven't figured out is your motivation
> for making them. Most people back off when they're caught making up stories,
> but you've decided to hang in there, Navas style. Kudos for the effort, I
> guess.

Very weak.

[XS11E]

It's looking more and more that "Paul Miner" is nothing but a troll.

[Justin]

The wifi signal sure is.

[Justin]

sms wrote on [Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:23:19 -0700]:
> Many
> restaurants have secure Wi-Fi but they provide the password to patrons.

So, we've moved from free wifi to pay for wifi

[sms]

On 4/8/2013 10:24 AM, XS11E wrote:
> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/7/2013 10:43 PM, Paul Miner wrote:
>>
>>> Yep, I'm aware of your claims. What I haven't figured out is your
>>> motivation for making them. Most people back off when they're
>>> caught making up stories, but you've decided to hang in there,
>>> Navas style. Kudos for the effort, I guess.
>>
>> Very weak.
>
> It's looking more and more that "Paul Miner" is nothing but a troll.

LOL, well if anyone I respected implied that I was employing "Navas
style" language I'd be really upset.

There's something else going on here that we're not aware of since so
many people have presented referenced facts yet we still see people like
Paul making up stories that have no basis in fact.

The latest news
"http://www.forbes.com/sites/benzingainsights/2013/04/08/google-might-be-planning-free-nationwide-wi-fi-since-the-ftc-isnt/".

Google should so this. Their whole business model depends on "the cloud"
and the high cost of mobile data is going to affect their business if
they don't take action.

I think Google should definitely do Cupertino first.

[Justin]

sms wrote on [Mon, 08 Apr 2013 11:30:33 -0700]:
> On 4/8/2013 10:24 AM, XS11E wrote:
>> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/7/2013 10:43 PM, Paul Miner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yep, I'm aware of your claims. What I haven't figured out is your
>>>> motivation for making them. Most people back off when they're
>>>> caught making up stories, but you've decided to hang in there,
>>>> Navas style. Kudos for the effort, I guess.
>>>
>>> Very weak.
>>
>> It's looking more and more that "Paul Miner" is nothing but a troll.
>
> LOL, well if anyone I respected implied that I was employing "Navas
> style" language I'd be really upset.
>
> There's something else going on here that we're not aware of since so
> many people have presented referenced facts yet we still see people like
> Paul making up stories that have no basis in fact.

Tokyo Air and podunk airports are not the world...

> The latest news
> "http://www.forbes.com/sites/benzingainsights/2013/04/08/google-might-be-planning-free-nationwide-wi-fi-since-the-ftc-isnt/".
>

Speculative fiction is your basis in reality now?

[Todd Allcock]

At 04 Apr 2013 18:26:15 -0700 sms wrote:
> On 4/4/2013 5:55 PM, nob...@nada.com wrote:
>
> > The T-Mobile $30 plan is 4G where it is available, up to 5GB.
>
> Are you saying that it's LTE, or that it's 3G (HSDPA) which T-Mobile
> calls 4G?

T-Mo just switched LTE on in a small handful of markets, so it's a little
early to know for certain. Based on past performance, however, T-Mo will
make no distinction. My unlimited data plan grandfathered from the EDGE
days, works on both 3G and HSPA+ "fauxG".

> I just wonder what happens to the $30 plan in terms of throttling when
> T-Mobile turns off EDGE, i.e.
> <http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1794470-T-Mobile-turned-OFF-
2g-but-added-4g-(2g-dead-zone)-Milwaukee-
Area?s=c4a16b47af572e937eeb1691ad997999>.

> Do you just lose all data, or
> do they have to provide you with HSDPA? Maybe the plan will morph to
> 5GB of LTE then throttle to HSDPA--wouldn't that be nice.

You misunderstand how throttling works. T-Mo doesn't kick anyone off
3G/"4G" back to EDGE or GPRS, they just slow your connection.

2G is spectrally inefficient compared to 3G. It would be insane to force
users from a more efficient band to a less efficient one as "punishment"
when they can just throttle the user's bandwidth on the more efficient
band.

By silly analogy, does your home ISP come out and run crappier wires to
your house if you lower your service to a 7Mbps connection from a 20?

> Couple that
> with a global phone that can be on the T-Mobile $30 plan most of the
> time, but that can also be activated on Page Plus on the CDMA side for
> when T-Mobile has no coverage.

I just keep throwing good money after bad on my PagePlus phones. I
haven't needed it in over a year, but I can't bear to let the $120+
balance expire, so I keep tossing another $10 on it 3 times a year. I
whipped it out once in Kauai when I had no T-Mo (or AT&T via roaming)
service, and it was as dead as my GSM phone was. Back at the hotel,
where there was service, I discovered my free dial-up QNC data didn't
work in Kauai.

[Todd Allcock]

At 06 Apr 2013 06:43:10 -0700 sms wrote:

> LTE versus HSPA+42 makes a difference for two reasons.
>
> First, because the average data speeds on T-Mobile's HSDPA network are

> still much slower than that of Verizon or AT&T LTE...

Funny that comparably small difference never used to bother you when it
was Verizon's slow 3G (and lack of simultaneous data) compared to AT&T's
and T-Mo's much faster HSPA systems. ;) Suddenly it's important?

Frankly, for on-phone data usage, old-school 3G (including Verizon's
antiquated EVDO implementation) was plenty fast enough, much less
HSPA+/fauxG and LTE.

> and second, because
> it makes a difference in handset selection and plan selection on T-
> Mobile.

Equipment, yes, plans, no. T-Mo doesn't have different plans for
different speeds (hence terms like "full speed data" in their plan
descriptions rather than "3G" or "4G" data.)

> So the question remains, on the $30, 5GB fast then unlimited slow, does
> the "fast" include LTE or is it only HSDPA?

Again, too early to state with certainty, but I can't see how or why
they'd make a distinction- their LTE network is too new and small to
punish early adopters with higher rates/different plans. They never
created special 3G plans or "4G" plans. Why start now with LTE?

[Todd Allcock]

At 07 Apr 2013 23:19:05 -0700 XS11E wrote:
> Paul Miner <pmi...@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 08:15:53 -0700, XS11E <xs1...@SPAMyahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>I get WiFi at almost all the places I eat.
> >
> > I sometimes eat at McDonald's too, but I really prefer not to.
> > Hence, for me, WiFi is _not_ available at most of the places where
> > I eat.
>
> I can't say if McDonalds has WiFi or not, I haven't eaten there. It's
> very common in other restaurants. I have no idea where you eat, the
> list shows 100s of places with WiFi in Seattle, many are restaurants
> and hundreds of Seattle residents have no problem locating WiFi.
>
> Sorry you're unable to find any, it's obvious your device has a
> problem, either hardware or wetware.

Oh, please. It's a glass half-empty/half-full problem.

I'm one of the "ubiquitous WiFi" naysayers, because I hold the word
"ubiquitous" to a higher standard.

I can find WiFi anytime I need to, by driving somewhere it's likely to be-
a library, a restaurant, a hotel, etc. WiFi is not, however, anywhere I
happen to be at a given moment.

If you're content with periodic connectivity, or just like fritting away
the hours in Starbucks and McDonald's stores, more power to you.
Cellular data is "ubiquitous", WiFi is "relatively common" at best.

My grocery store has WiFi, sort of. They have a sign bragging about it,
and if you turn on your WiFi, there's an unprotected network with their
name, but I'll be darned if I've ever been able to connect to it with
three different devices!

[sms]

On 4/8/2013 9:56 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> At 06 Apr 2013 06:43:10 -0700 sms wrote:
>
>> LTE versus HSPA+42 makes a difference for two reasons.
>>
>> First, because the average data speeds on T-Mobile's HSDPA network are
>> still much slower than that of Verizon or AT&T LTE...
>
> Funny that comparably small difference never used to bother you when it
> was Verizon's slow 3G (and lack of simultaneous data) compared to AT&T's
> and T-Mo's much faster HSPA systems. ;) Suddenly it's important?

Not to me personally, but to many people it is important.

> Equipment, yes, plans, no. T-Mo doesn't have different plans for
> different speeds (hence terms like "full speed data" in their plan
> descriptions rather than "3G" or "4G" data.)

That's what I want to know, "does the $30 5GB/unlimited plan include LTE?"

> Again, too early to state with certainty, but I can't see how or why
> they'd make a distinction- their LTE network is too new and small to
> punish early adopters with higher rates/different plans. They never
> created special 3G plans or "4G" plans. Why start now with LTE?

Verizon has been anal about keeping LTE away from prepaid MVNOs, you
don't get it on Straight Talk and you don't get it on Page Plus. They
are protecting their postpaid revenue.

That $30 plan from T-Mobile is pretty awesome if you can live with the
coverage. Install Talkatone and you essentially have unlimited talk as
well (if you want to get clever you could port your existing cell number
to Google Voice and get a new T-Mobile number).

[Todd Allcock]

At 09 Apr 2013 07:22:05 -0700 sms wrote:
> On 4/8/2013 9:56 PM, Todd Allcock wrote:
> > At 06 Apr 2013 06:43:10 -0700 sms wrote:
> >
> >> LTE versus HSPA+42 makes a difference for two reasons.
> >>
> >> First, because the average data speeds on T-Mobile's HSDPA network
are
> >> still much slower than that of Verizon or AT&T LTE...
> >
> > Funny that comparably small difference never used to bother you when
it
> > was Verizon's slow 3G (and lack of simultaneous data) compared to
AT&T's
> > and T-Mo's much faster HSPA systems. ;) Suddenly it's important?
>
> Not to me personally, but to many people it is important.
>
> > Equipment, yes, plans, no. T-Mo doesn't have different plans for
> > different speeds (hence terms like "full speed data" in their plan
> > descriptions rather than "3G" or "4G" data.)
>
> That's what I want to know, "does the $30 5GB/unlimited plan include
LTE?"

I has worked for the very small number people with compatible phones
during T-Mo's tests who've posted on HoFo. I don't personally know any
one in the half dozen T-Mo LTE cities with that plan and compatible
equipment.

> > Again, too early to state with certainty, but I can't see how or why
> > they'd make a distinction- their LTE network is too new and small to
> > punish early adopters with higher rates/different plans. They never
> > created special 3G plans or "4G" plans. Why start now with LTE?
>
> Verizon has been anal about keeping LTE away from prepaid MVNOs, you
> don't get it on Straight Talk and you don't get it on Page Plus. They
> are protecting their postpaid revenue.

T-Mo isn't Verizon. They'll just throttle you after your "full speed"
data allotment is up.

> That $30 plan from T-Mobile is pretty awesome if you can live with the
> coverage. Install Talkatone and you essentially have unlimited talk as
> well (if you want to get clever you could port your existing cell
> number to Google Voice and get a new T-Mobile number).

My son is on that plan, but I think I'm going to roll the whole family to
the new uncarrier plans. $100 will get us four lines with unlimited talk,
text and web (though only 500MB each at "full speed"). My wife rarely
exceeds 500MB, my son used to, but ratcheted that way down when he
switched from a Windows Phone to an iPhone (he streamed a lot of video on
the WP because the games selection was thin. On iOS he plays games
instead of watching videos.) I use the most data, but I don't care about
speed- it's primarily email and light web browsing, and I put up with
EDGE on T-Mo for years (even when T-Mo went to 3G, I mostly used unlocked
phones without T-Mo's 1700MHz band. Ironically, all of those now work
great after the refarm to 1900 in preparation for LTE.)

If the slow speeds really torque me off, T-Mo sells an extra 2GB of high
speed for $10/month/line.

[AL]

Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

>I'm one of the "ubiquitous WiFi" naysayers, because I hold the word
>"ubiquitous" to a higher standard.

Exactly! The problem with this (silly) thread is that people have
different ideas of what constitutes 'ubiquitous'. Is it a hotspot
every 10 feet? Every block? Every city? There is no specific
scientific definition of the word that I could find.

I think many people would say that McDonalds restaurants are
ubiquitous in the US. However it appears that you could be 107 miles
away from one. But even with that info the author of this article
still thinks they're ubiquitous judging from the first sentence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/23/a-mcdonalds-is-never-more_n_297153.html

So, IMO all your posts in this thread should probably start with IMO.
Because all of you can (and probably will) argue until the cows come
home but there likely will never be any proof, agreement... or winner
if you prefer... ;)

[XS11E]

AL <AL37...@AL4010589.com> wrote:

> Exactly! The problem with this (silly) thread is that people have
> different ideas of what constitutes 'ubiquitous'.

Go read the "Paul Minor" troll's OP, what constitutes 'ubiquitous'
isn't really in doubt as far as it's meaning in this thread.

[Owen McKenzie]

On 4/9/2013 5:47 PM, XS11E wrote:
> AL <AL37...@AL4010589.com> wrote:
>
>> Exactly! The problem with this (silly) thread is that people have
>> different ideas of what constitutes 'ubiquitous'.
>
> Go read the "Paul Minor" troll's OP, what constitutes 'ubiquitous'
> isn't really in doubt as far as it's meaning in this thread.
>
>
>

I didn't think the definition of a word such as ubiquitous changed from
place to place.

Definition of UBIQUITOUS
existing or being everywhere at the same time

From The Princess Bride:

Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what
you think it means.
--

Owen McKenzie
Posting from Largo, FL

"Liberals are very broadminded: they are always willing to give careful
consideration to both sides of the same side."
-- Anonymous

[Justin]

AL wrote on [Tue, 09 Apr 2013 13:51:10 -0700]:
> Todd Allcock <elecc...@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm one of the "ubiquitous WiFi" naysayers, because I hold the word
>>"ubiquitous" to a higher standard.
>
> Exactly! The problem with this (silly) thread is that people have
> different ideas of what constitutes 'ubiquitous'. Is it a hotspot
> every 10 feet? Every block? Every city? There is no specific
> scientific definition of the word that I could find.

Ubiquitous means available everywhere. Which some people are claiming.

However, free wifi is far from it.
Even the loose idea that it's available where people need to
use it, SMS's claims, is far from right.

[XS11E]

Owen McKenzie <owenwm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/9/2013 5:47 PM, XS11E wrote:
>> AL <AL37...@AL4010589.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Exactly! The problem with this (silly) thread is that people
>>> have different ideas of what constitutes 'ubiquitous'.
>>
>> Go read the "Paul Minor" troll's OP, what constitutes
>> 'ubiquitous' isn't really in doubt as far as it's meaning in this
>> thread.

> I didn't think the definition of a word such as ubiquitous changed
> from place to place.
>
> Definition of UBIQUITOUS
> existing or being everywhere at the same time

Widespread. <- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ubiquitous

> From The Princess Bride:
> Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what
> you think it means.

How very appropriate!

[Justin]

XS11E wrote on [Tue, 09 Apr 2013 21:25:26 -0700]:
> Owen McKenzie <owenwm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/9/2013 5:47 PM, XS11E wrote:
>>> AL <AL37...@AL4010589.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Exactly! The problem with this (silly) thread is that people
>>>> have different ideas of what constitutes 'ubiquitous'.
>>>
>>> Go read the "Paul Minor" troll's OP, what constitutes
>>> 'ubiquitous' isn't really in doubt as far as it's meaning in this
>>> thread.
>
>> I didn't think the definition of a word such as ubiquitous changed
>> from place to place.
>>
>> Definition of UBIQUITOUS
>> existing or being everywhere at the same time
>
> Widespread. <- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ubiquitous

Just looking at maps of local hotspots I can see it doesn't even meet that
definition.

[XS11E]

It certainly does, don't know what map you're using.

Now reread the OP, the troll claims WiFi isn't ubiquitus because,
although he admits it's widespread, he can't connect or it's too slow
for him. He apparently believes that ubiquitous WiFi means WiFi that
his faulty equipment can use, not WiFi that everyone else can use.

[Justin]

XS11E wrote on [Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:50:24 -0700]:
> Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> XS11E wrote on [Tue, 09 Apr 2013 21:25:26 -0700]:
>>> Owen McKenzie <owenwm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/9/2013 5:47 PM, XS11E wrote:
>>>>> AL <AL37...@AL4010589.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Exactly! The problem with this (silly) thread is that people
>>>>>> have different ideas of what constitutes 'ubiquitous'.
>>>>>
>>>>> Go read the "Paul Minor" troll's OP, what constitutes
>>>>> 'ubiquitous' isn't really in doubt as far as it's meaning in
>>>>> this thread.
>>>
>>>> I didn't think the definition of a word such as ubiquitous
>>>> changed from place to place.
>>>>
>>>> Definition of UBIQUITOUS existing or being everywhere at the
>>>> same time
>>>
>>> Widespread. <-
>>> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ubiquitous
>>
>> Just looking at maps of local hotspots I can see it doesn't even
>> meet that definition.
>
> It certainly does, don't know what map you're using.

An actual map of actual hotspots with tens of miles between them

> Now reread the OP, the troll claims WiFi isn't ubiquitus because,
> although he admits it's widespread, he can't connect or it's too slow
> for him. He apparently believes that ubiquitous WiFi means WiFi that
> his faulty equipment can use, not WiFi that everyone else can use.

There's plenty of unusable "free wifi" too

[nob...@nada.com]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:50:24 -0700, XS11E <xs1...@SPAMyahoo.com>
wrote:

This thread has degenerated into absurdity. Wifi is available where it
is available and not where it isn't. Whether that's "ubiquitous" to
you or not depends on your definition and maybe on where you go.
Expecting it to be wherever you are is ridiculous. If it's available
when and where you need it, fine. If not, too bad, and you can choose
what level of effort you are willing to make to find it. It usually
isn't that hard if you really need it. If you are so far from
civilization that it's hard to find, you provably can't get a data
connection either.

If you need lots of data and frequently can't get to wifi, buy more
data and don't go where that's not going to work. It is what it is,
and arguing about whether it's ubiquitous or not isn't going to change
that. I find I can get it without a lot of problem. YMMV.

[XS11E]

nob...@nada.com wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 08:50:24 -0700, XS11E <xs1...@SPAMyahoo.com>
> wrote:

>>Now reread the OP, the troll claims WiFi isn't ubiquitus because,
>>although he admits it's widespread, he can't connect or it's too
>>slow for him. He apparently believes that ubiquitous WiFi means
>>WiFi that his faulty equipment can use, not WiFi that everyone
>>else can use.
>
> This thread has degenerated into absurdity.

Correct.

> Wifi is available where it is available and not where it isn't.
> Whether that's "ubiquitous" to you or not depends on your
> definition

The OPs definition is what's being discussed, he believes WiFi doesn't
exist if he can't connect and connect at a speed he approves of. If
his device can't connect or if it connects at a low speed, then it
doesn't exist. That's apparently his definition and that's what this
thread is about.

> Expecting it to be wherever you are is ridiculous.

Not, apparently, to the OP.

NOTE: I recently acquired a new phone and I now find several places
where it detects a good strong WiFi signal but fails to connect.
Therefore I, like the OP troll, shall complain that those places DO NOT
HAVE WiFi! Or I could re-activate my old phone and then those places
would magically have WiFi once again.

Does anyone think the OP troll will read the above note and realize how
silly his OP rant sounded?

[Owen McKenzie]

On 4/10/2013 12:25 AM, XS11E wrote:
> Owen McKenzie <owenwm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/9/2013 5:47 PM, XS11E wrote:
>>> AL <AL37...@AL4010589.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Exactly! The problem with this (silly) thread is that people
>>>> have different ideas of what constitutes 'ubiquitous'.
>>>
>>> Go read the "Paul Minor" troll's OP, what constitutes
>>> 'ubiquitous' isn't really in doubt as far as it's meaning in this
>>> thread.
>
>> I didn't think the definition of a word such as ubiquitous changed
>> from place to place.
>>
>> Definition of UBIQUITOUS
>> existing or being everywhere at the same time
>
> Widespread. <- http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ubiquitous

That's interesting. When I go to that link I see this:

"Definition of UBIQUITOUS
: existing or being everywhere at the same time : constantly encountered
: widespread <a ubiquitous fashion> "

Didn't you notice that widespread is third behind what I posted earlier
from the same link *and* "constantly encountered"?

I agree with nobody, this thread has degenerated into an exercise in
mountain climbing over mole hills. Have at it.

>
>> From The Princess Bride:
>> Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what
>> you think it means.
>
> How very appropriate!
>


--

[nob...@nada.com]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:28:28 -0700, XS11E <xs1...@SPAMyahoo.com>
wrote:

No, and it's not his first rodeo.

[Paul Miner]

On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 23:19:05 -0700, XS11E <xs1...@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>Paul Miner <pmi...@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 08:15:53 -0700, XS11E <xs1...@SPAMyahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I get WiFi at almost all the places I eat.
>>
>> I sometimes eat at McDonald's too, but I really prefer not to.
>> Hence, for me, WiFi is _not_ available at most of the places where
>> I eat.
>
>I can't say if McDonalds has WiFi or not, I haven't eaten there. It's
>very common in other restaurants. I have no idea where you eat, the
>list shows 100s of places with WiFi in Seattle, many are restaurants
>and hundreds of Seattle residents have no problem locating WiFi.

So in a city of over 3 million people covering an area of over 140 square
miles, you're saying there are hundreds of WiFi hotspots and hundreds of
people who have no trouble finding them? Do you realize that you've
confirmed my suspicions that WiFi is absolutely not widely available there?

>Sorry you're unable to find any, it's obvious your device has a
>problem, either hardware or wetware.

Save your apology. I didn't say I was "unable to find any".

--
Paul Miner

[Paul Miner]

On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:50:59 +0000 (UTC), Justin <nos...@insightbb.com>
wrote:

>XS11E wrote on [Sun, 07 Apr 2013 23:19:05 -0700]:
>> Paul Miner <pmi...@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 05 Apr 2013 08:15:53 -0700, XS11E <xs1...@SPAMyahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I get WiFi at almost all the places I eat.
>>>
>>> I sometimes eat at McDonald's too, but I really prefer not to.
>>> Hence, for me, WiFi is _not_ available at most of the places where
>>> I eat.
>>
>> I can't say if McDonalds has WiFi or not, I haven't eaten there. It's
>> very common in other restaurants. I have no idea where you eat, the
>> list shows 100s of places with WiFi in Seattle, many are restaurants
>> and hundreds of Seattle residents have no problem locating WiFi.
>

>Of a city of over 4 million, only hundreds have no problem locating wifi?
>
>Of thousands of restaurants only hundreds have wifi?

I essentially just posted the same thing, not having seen your post.

--
Paul Miner

[Paul Miner]

Nice dodge.

--
Paul Miner

[Paul Miner]

On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 17:47:54 +0000 (UTC), Justin <nos...@insightbb.com>
wrote:

Actually, he moved there long ago when he claimed that hotels and
restaurants were among his primary sources of "free" WiFi. The phrase "not
good at math" comes to mind.

--
Paul Miner

[Paul Miner]

On Mon, 08 Apr 2013 11:30:33 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>On 4/8/2013 10:24 AM, XS11E wrote:
>> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/7/2013 10:43 PM, Paul Miner wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yep, I'm aware of your claims. What I haven't figured out is your
>>>> motivation for making them. Most people back off when they're
>>>> caught making up stories, but you've decided to hang in there,
>>>> Navas style. Kudos for the effort, I guess.
>>>
>>> Very weak.
>>
>> It's looking more and more that "Paul Miner" is nothing but a troll.
>
>LOL, well if anyone I respected implied that I was employing "Navas
>style" language I'd be really upset.

Very weak.

--
Paul Miner

[Justin]

I find it hilarious that SMS, the troll, has either killfiled me or is
just plainly ignoring me. Goes out of his way to ignore any comments I
make, no matter how on the money they are.

This guy has obviously lost in this argument and keeps plugging away at it.

Painted into a corner doesn't begin to describe his position.

[nob...@nada.com]

Or maybe he's just tired of beating a long-dead horse.

[SMS]

On 04/11/2013 12:05 PM, nob...@nada.com wrote:

> Or maybe he's just tired of beating a long-dead horse.

LOL. Basically that's it. Justin's a troll, and responding to trolls
only encourages them.

[Justin]

Funny how anyone that proves him wrong is a troll