info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
If YOU were in charge, part room 222
55 views
Skip to first unread message
Roger House
Sep 22, 2021, 9:07:51 PM9/22/21
to
Before I say this one, let me preface it by saying that there MAYBE things related to it that I don't know about. I would make it federally, (IF federally is the right word/term/way to say it), illegal for wireless companies to, as they say, slow speeds.
Questor
Sep 25, 2021, 3:00:14 PM9/25/21
to
On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 18:07:51 -0700 (PDT), Roger House <61rr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Would you care to add more context to your remark?
So you don't believe in free market capitalism? You don't think that wireless
companies, and their subcontractors, should be able to operate their legally
owned assets in whatever manner they chose?
I recognize that telecommunications have long been regulated in the U.S. I also
think there quite possibly times of high usage and/or limited capacity when
throttling transmission speeds may be a better alternative than simply denying
service to some fraction of customers.
--
The first rule of Dunning-Kruger Club is you do not know you're in
Dunning-Kruger Club.
wrote:
So you don't believe in free market capitalism? You don't think that wireless
companies, and their subcontractors, should be able to operate their legally
owned assets in whatever manner they chose?
I recognize that telecommunications have long been regulated in the U.S. I also
think there quite possibly times of high usage and/or limited capacity when
throttling transmission speeds may be a better alternative than simply denying
service to some fraction of customers.
--
The first rule of Dunning-Kruger Club is you do not know you're in
Dunning-Kruger Club.
Roger House
Sep 25, 2021, 6:44:26 PM9/25/21
to
I just see the T.V. commercials for wireless companies, and, in and as a part of the fine print, it says SOMETHING LIKE, (I don't remember for sure exactly WHAT it says and/or how it says it), "....after a certain amount of usage, company may slow speeds." Although I DO NOT know ANYTHING about that or WHY they do it, (the slowing of speeds), when they do, from the customer's point of view, or, you might say, from THIS customer's, (mind's), point of view, that ROYALLY STINKS!!!!!
Finally(?), I did NOT say anything or mean to say anything, and I did NOT imply or mean to imply anything about denying some customers service. It's just that, in MY opinion, for the fine print thing that I'm talking about, if one takes it "at face value", as it's said, it "SEEMS" wrong for wireless companies to slow speeds, at least as it relates to customers who have unlimited plans that include unlimited data. Also, if a customer chooses an unlimited plan, then, at least to me, it SHOULD BE truly 100% unlimited, otherwise; don't call it unlimited. One other thing, although I do NOT know much, if anything, about it, I DO NOT have anything against free market capitalism. I hope that I said all of this properly. If I didn't, then please forgive me.
--
R.
"You know you're getting old when you wake up in the morning and hear snap, crackle, and pop, but it isn't your cereal"
Howard
Sep 25, 2021, 11:38:20 PM9/25/21
to
Roger House <61rr...@gmail.com> wrote
> If I didn't, then please
> forgive me.
I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're after. But I certainly
understand the frustration with wireless plans, and the challenge of
sorting through all of the terms and conditions.
I am glad that at a minimum the feds forced the wireless companies to allow
phone numbers to be portable when you changed plans. Verizon et al swore
upon the sun, moon and stars that requiring them to let you keep (321) 555-
1234 when you changed to another company would be the end of cell phone
service forever, and as it turned out they had no problem making the
switch. I am sure there is a lot more they could do if they were forced.
> If I didn't, then please
> forgive me.
understand the frustration with wireless plans, and the challenge of
sorting through all of the terms and conditions.
I am glad that at a minimum the feds forced the wireless companies to allow
phone numbers to be portable when you changed plans. Verizon et al swore
upon the sun, moon and stars that requiring them to let you keep (321) 555-
1234 when you changed to another company would be the end of cell phone
service forever, and as it turned out they had no problem making the
switch. I am sure there is a lot more they could do if they were forced.
Boron Elgar
Sep 26, 2021, 9:27:17 AM9/26/21
to
On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 03:38:19 -0000 (UTC), Howard <how...@yaooho.com>
wrote:
>Roger House <61rr...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> If I didn't, then please
>> forgive me.
>
>I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're after. But I certainly
>understand the frustration with wireless plans, and the challenge of
>sorting through all of the terms and conditions.
The unlimited plans that use their ads' small print to describe the
throttling they put into the contracts does not surprise me at all.
As more and more people use their phones for primary online platform
contact and for extensive and serious entertainment streaming- way
beyond what unlimited texting and talking (ha...anyone still actually
talk on a phone?) were pushed to lure users across providers,
throttling becomes necessary.
The providers cannot keep up with the newer uses of the smart phones
and their older physical networks were not designed for it.
Really, though, you have to do a lot of streaming to get throttled.
>I am glad that at a minimum the feds forced the wireless companies to allow
>phone numbers to be portable when you changed plans. Verizon et al swore
>upon the sun, moon and stars that requiring them to let you keep (321) 555-
>1234 when you changed to another company would be the end of cell phone
>service forever, and as it turned out they had no problem making the
>switch. I am sure there is a lot more they could do if they were forced.
They do so love to charge you a "portage" fee if you transfer a
number from one provider to another. Such a fee can often be a decent
bargaining chip.
My pet peeve with the providers, in particular, with Verizon, is that
going online, vs in store, vs customer service on the phone, can all
generate wildly different deals insofar as rebates, fees and extras.
Each of these access points has its own sales staff and commission
structure. The knives are often out.
wrote:
>Roger House <61rr...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>> If I didn't, then please
>> forgive me.
>
>I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're after. But I certainly
>understand the frustration with wireless plans, and the challenge of
>sorting through all of the terms and conditions.
throttling they put into the contracts does not surprise me at all.
As more and more people use their phones for primary online platform
contact and for extensive and serious entertainment streaming- way
beyond what unlimited texting and talking (ha...anyone still actually
talk on a phone?) were pushed to lure users across providers,
throttling becomes necessary.
The providers cannot keep up with the newer uses of the smart phones
and their older physical networks were not designed for it.
Really, though, you have to do a lot of streaming to get throttled.
>I am glad that at a minimum the feds forced the wireless companies to allow
>phone numbers to be portable when you changed plans. Verizon et al swore
>upon the sun, moon and stars that requiring them to let you keep (321) 555-
>1234 when you changed to another company would be the end of cell phone
>service forever, and as it turned out they had no problem making the
>switch. I am sure there is a lot more they could do if they were forced.
number from one provider to another. Such a fee can often be a decent
bargaining chip.
My pet peeve with the providers, in particular, with Verizon, is that
going online, vs in store, vs customer service on the phone, can all
generate wildly different deals insofar as rebates, fees and extras.
Each of these access points has its own sales staff and commission
structure. The knives are often out.
Boron Elgar
Sep 26, 2021, 4:34:47 PM9/26/21
to
On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 09:27:16 -0400, Boron Elgar
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>They do so love to charge you a "portage" fee if you transfer a
>number from one provider to another. Such a fee can often be a decent
>bargaining chip.
>
Not portage, just porting...too much kayaking in my past....
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>They do so love to charge you a "portage" fee if you transfer a
>number from one provider to another. Such a fee can often be a decent
>bargaining chip.
>
Questor
Sep 28, 2021, 9:01:30 AM9/28/21
to
Canada.
--
Well I said good-bye to Rosie Rooke this morning
I'm gonna miss her blood-shot alcoholic eyes
Questor
Sep 28, 2021, 9:01:52 AM9/28/21
to
On Sat, 25 Sep 2021 15:44:25 -0700 (PDT), Roger House <61rr...@gmail.com>
Has this been an ongoing problem that has an impact on your life?
It seems to me you're (over-) reacting to some lawyer-mandated legalese and that
this isn't actually something you've experienced very much, if at all.
>limited plans that include unlimited data. Also, if a customer chooses an
>unlimited plan, then, at least to me, it SHOULD BE truly 100% unlimited,
>otherwise; don't call it unlimited.
Well, yes, this has been an issue for a while. But these kind of "weasle
words," as Frank Zappa would call them, have been around in advertising
for a long time. The savvy consumer learns to read the fine print and takes the
maxim, "there's no such thing as a free lunch" to heart.
--
Through all levels you've been changing; elevator in the brain hotel
wrote:
>On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 3:00:14 PM UTC-4, Questor wrote:
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 18:07:51 -0700 (PDT), Roger House <61rr...@gmail.com>=
>On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 3:00:14 PM UTC-4, Questor wrote:
>>wrote:
>>>Before I say this one, let me preface it by saying that there MAYBE things
>>>related to it that I don't know about. I would make it federally, (IF federally
>>>is the right word/term/way to say it), illegal for wireless companies to as
>>>Before I say this one, let me preface it by saying that there MAYBE things
>>>related to it that I don't know about. I would make it federally, (IF federally
>>>they say, slow speeds.
>>Would you care to add more context to your remark?
>>
>>So you don't believe in free market capitalism? You don't think that wireless
>>companies, and their subcontractors, should be able to operate their legally
>>owned assets in whatever manner they chose?
>
>>I recognize that telecommunications have long been regulated in the U.S. I also
>>think there quite possibly times of high usage and/or limited capacity when
>>throttling transmission speeds may be a better alternative than simply denying
>>service to some fraction of customers.
>
>>Would you care to add more context to your remark?
>>
>>So you don't believe in free market capitalism? You don't think that wireless
>>companies, and their subcontractors, should be able to operate their legally
>>owned assets in whatever manner they chose?
>
>>I recognize that telecommunications have long been regulated in the U.S. I also
>>think there quite possibly times of high usage and/or limited capacity when
>>throttling transmission speeds may be a better alternative than simply denying
>>service to some fraction of customers.
>
>I just see the T.V. commercials for wireless companies, and, in and as a part
>of the fine print, it says SOMETHING LIKE, (I don't remember for sure exactly
>WHAT it says and/or how it says it), "....after a certain amount of usage
>of the fine print, it says SOMETHING LIKE, (I don't remember for sure exactly
>WHAT it says and/or how it says it), "....after a certain amount of usage
>company may slow speeds." Although I DO NOT know ANYTHING about that
>or WHY they do it, (the slowing of speeds), when they do, from the customer's
>point of view, or, you might say, from THIS customer's, (mind's), point
>of view, that ROYALLY STINKS!!!!!
Have you, or anyone you personally know, had their wireless connections slowed?
>or WHY they do it, (the slowing of speeds), when they do, from the customer's
>point of view, or, you might say, from THIS customer's, (mind's), point
>of view, that ROYALLY STINKS!!!!!
Has this been an ongoing problem that has an impact on your life?
It seems to me you're (over-) reacting to some lawyer-mandated legalese and that
this isn't actually something you've experienced very much, if at all.
>limited plans that include unlimited data. Also, if a customer chooses an
>unlimited plan, then, at least to me, it SHOULD BE truly 100% unlimited,
>otherwise; don't call it unlimited.
words," as Frank Zappa would call them, have been around in advertising
for a long time. The savvy consumer learns to read the fine print and takes the
maxim, "there's no such thing as a free lunch" to heart.
--
Through all levels you've been changing; elevator in the brain hotel
Boron Elgar
Sep 28, 2021, 1:45:40 PM9/28/21
to
On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 13:02:41 GMT, use...@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 16:34:46 -0400, Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 09:27:16 -0400, Boron Elgar
>><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>They do so love to charge you a "portage" fee if you transfer a
>>>number from one provider to another. Such a fee can often be a decent
>>>bargaining chip.
>>
>>Not portage, just porting...too much kayaking in my past....
>
>Portage, ugh. Triggers some unpleasant memories from summer canoe camp in
>Canada.
The weight wasn't too burdensome if one's partners were decent, but
>On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 16:34:46 -0400, Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 09:27:16 -0400, Boron Elgar
>><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>They do so love to charge you a "portage" fee if you transfer a
>>>number from one provider to another. Such a fee can often be a decent
>>>bargaining chip.
>>
>>Not portage, just porting...too much kayaking in my past....
>
>Portage, ugh. Triggers some unpleasant memories from summer canoe camp in
>Canada.
the black flies and mosquitoes never let up. Some were large enough to
have assisted in the portage- at least it seemed so at the time.
Les Albert
Sep 29, 2021, 12:45:22 AM9/29/21
to
>On Tue, 28 Sep 2021 13:02:41 GMT, use...@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>>On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 16:34:46 -0400, Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 09:27:16 -0400, Boron Elgar
>>><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>They do so love to charge you a "portage" fee if you transfer a
>>>>number from one provider to another. Such a fee can often be a decent
>>>>bargaining chip.
>>>Not portage, just porting...too much kayaking in my past....
>>Portage, ugh. Triggers some unpleasant memories from summer canoe camp in
>>Canada.
Pleasant memories for me at a New York state summer camp. We had a 10
>>On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 16:34:46 -0400, Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 26 Sep 2021 09:27:16 -0400, Boron Elgar
>>><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>They do so love to charge you a "portage" fee if you transfer a
>>>>number from one provider to another. Such a fee can often be a decent
>>>>bargaining chip.
>>>Not portage, just porting...too much kayaking in my past....
>>Portage, ugh. Triggers some unpleasant memories from summer canoe camp in
>>Canada.
person canoe. No portage, but with 10 kids paddling that canoe moved
very fast.
Les
Questor
Sep 29, 2021, 4:20:32 PM9/29/21
to
mostly a positive experience. But there was one trip...
We paddled North through Lady Evelyn Lake, then turned West to stop for a side
trip up Maple Mountain. On the return to the base camp, we were on a small
river, and one day it was portage after portage. We'd unload the canoes, hump
all the gear to the other side, and load everything back into the canoes. After
a short paddle there would be another portage. Once there was another portage
literally around the first bend in the river; we had been on the water only
minutes. It was a hellish day, and we spent far more time hauling our gear
over trails than we did in the canoes. The one bright spot of that day is that
we got an extra candy bar, and in those days a Canadian Cadbury chocolate bar
was a real treat.
--
You don't to say one word to talk to me; all I know is we have sympathy
Close your eyes and lean your head on me
Bob
Oct 1, 2021, 12:05:07 PM10/1/21
to
On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 4:20:32 PM UTC-4, Questor wrote:
> Once there was another portage
> literally around the first bend in the river; we had been on the water only
> minutes.
> --
> Once there was another portage
> literally around the first bend in the river; we had been on the water only
> minutes.
Then did it even pay to put the boat in the water on that leg?
Questor
Oct 1, 2021, 2:56:34 PM10/1/21
to
On Fri, 1 Oct 2021 09:05:06 -0700 (PDT), Bob <rob...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 4:20:32 PM UTC-4, Questor wrote:
>
>> Once there was another portage
>> literally around the first bend in the river; we had been on the water only
>> minutes.
>On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 4:20:32 PM UTC-4, Questor wrote:
>
>> Once there was another portage
>> literally around the first bend in the river; we had been on the water only
>> minutes.
>Then did it even pay to put the boat in the water on that leg?
Maybe not, but we didn't know how close the next portage was going to be,
and the easiest way to reach it was by water. There was no trail between the
end of one portage and the beginning of the next.
--
Walked and talked with Susie, walked and talked with Susie
Walked and talked with Susie, walked and talked with Susie
0 new messages