A fucking joke from that cock stabber shit pus wank McQuaid
Gresh
Why don't you just quit?
Or should I say, why the fuck don't you just quit?
Games are a way to entertain yourself in your leisure time. If you
get this worked up over a game, just quit. Just fucking quit.
Gresh
Qualm, Barbarian Shaman, E'ci
>Yeah, I'm annoyed.
>
>What the fuck is with the game design.
Silverlock
<postm...@x-static.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Yeah, I'm annoyed.
>
>What the fuck is with the game design.
>
>2 of the Shaman armour pieces need - Grizzleknot Bark and Glacier Bear
>Pelt. I've spent *hours* on both. Not hours killing without getting. But
>hours looking!
>
>What is the fun in spending 9 hours waiting in Everfrost and getting no
>Glacier Bear appear? What is the fun in spending 5 hours in South Karana
>and getting no Grizzleknot?
>
>This is the reason this game is failing. Spending hours doing nothing
>waiting for things to appear. This isn't a quest. Its torture. Fix it
>Verant.
Oh yeah that'll make him want to help Shaman. New announcement Shaman
melee is being nerfed to pure caster levels, their pets are being
removed and all their buffs are being made self only. To balance this
they now will all have the exclusive ability to use the new /fart
emote.
--
Silverlock, ICQ 474725
Household Pests? The SW-404 'SpitFire' APRL cleansing system
will remove them, we Guarantee IT! Not responsible for damage
to persons or structures from use of this product.
Dial 1-800-FRY-THEM for info and a home demonstration.
Philth
>I've asked you this before.
>
>Why don't you just quit?
>
>Or should I say, why the fuck don't you just quit?
>
>Games are a way to entertain yourself in your leisure time. If you
>get this worked up over a game, just quit. Just fucking quit.
>
>Gresh
>Qualm, Barbarian Shaman, E'ci
And then some people might ask you why you even bother coming into the
newsgroups and post messages like this? If you get so worked up about his
viewpoints, why dont you just ignore them? Tad bit of irony here, but I tend
to not understand why people just say this over and over instead of adding
their own constructive opinions.
garbanzo
>I've asked you this before.
>
>Why don't you just quit?
Ahem. Because we care. Because the game is painfully close to
being the best game ever created, but the problems are so bad that
they do ruin the game, period.
When something is wrong, whining, bitching, and complaining seem like
a suitable response to me. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Personally I'm just sticking around until something better comes
along, which I'm sure will be no later than the release of Diablo 2.
If something comes along in the meanwhile which tickles my fancy, I'll
jump ship from EQ.
I do think Verant needs to look into how much (potential) profit they
are losing on EQ2.....they have lost alot of (potential) repeat
customers ALREADY with senseless design decisions and bad policies.
Lawless
>
> What is the fun in spending 9 hours waiting in Everfrost and getting no
> Glacier Bear appear? What is the fun in spending 5 hours in South Karana
> and getting no Grizzleknot?
What is the fun in spending 20 minutes to finish the quest? Hell, what is the fun of waiting for anything? Let's raise all exp to triple the nowmal
rate so people can get to 50 3 times faster and won't have to wait so long. And let's make EVERYTHING in the game available from merchants.
> This is the reason this game is failing.
It's failing? Funny, it's the best online selling game of all time, yet you think it's failing. Tell that to the 100,000 people subscribed to it.
> Spending hours doing nothing
> waiting for things to appear. This isn't a quest. Its torture. Fix it
> Verant.
Torture for you.
Philth
>What is the fun in spending 20 minutes to finish the quest?
Being able to finally move on and maybe get to bed early for a change.
Billy Shields
: Yeah, I'm annoyed.
: What the fuck is with the game design.
: 2 of the Shaman armour pieces need - Grizzleknot Bark and Glacier Bear
: Pelt. I've spent *hours* on both. Not hours killing without getting. But
: hours looking!
: What is the fun in spending 9 hours waiting in Everfrost and getting no
: Glacier Bear appear? What is the fun in spending 5 hours in South Karana
: and getting no Grizzleknot?
: This is the reason this game is failing. Spending hours doing nothing
: waiting for things to appear. This isn't a quest. Its torture. Fix it
: Verant.
Gee Al, looks like you've taken up camping.
Lee Atkins
>being the best game ever created
Oh be careful, that's almost praise!
Gets me all teary eyed :)
Kaens
~the Povar Procurer
garbanzo
>> Because we care. Because the game is painfully close to
>>being the best game ever created
>
>Oh be careful, that's almost praise!
>
>Gets me all teary eyed :)
Snap out of it. :) The bottom line is I won't be playing this TPS
in 3 months hehehe. Feel less misty now? :)
Alasdair Allan
> He is one of the two treants that spawn near the east wall of the zone in
> SK. DEs and other evils regulary kill off treants for nice cash and loot.
> You will ruin faction with guardofqeynos and a lot of treehuggers. He is a
> very rare treant, probably level 25 or so, and will wander if he is not
> killed off.
No, he is one of the wandering mobs in that zone.
If you aren't a Druid or Ranger (or Bard) then you have next to no chance of
claiming the mob, if he does ever spawn. Which he bloody well near enough
doesn't.
--
Alasdair Allan, Ibrox, Glasgow |England - Country where Marx developed
x-st...@null.net | the basis of Communism
X-Static's Rangers Webzine |Scotland - Country where Smith developed
http://www.x-static.demon.co.uk/ | the basis of Capitalism
Alasdair Allan
> I've asked you this before.
>
> Why don't you just quit?
>
>
> Games are a way to entertain yourself in your leisure time. If you
> get this worked up over a game, just quit. Just fucking quit.
The fact that one part of the game is broken does not detract from the fact
that other parts of the experience can be wonderful.
When something needs improved it is worth saying so.
mr_dq
The Fellhanded wrote:
> Ok how about this On the Xegony Server there Is a High Lvl Shaman Killing
> the NPC that Gives the Quest for the Shaman Armor All He Dose Is Hide wait till
> he Spawns and then Kills Him over and over He Wants to Be the Only one with the
> Armor What a Jackass My shaman Friend Cant get Jack .
>
> Alasdair Allan wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I'm annoyed.
> >
> > What the fuck is with the game design.
> >
> > 2 of the Shaman armour pieces need - Grizzleknot Bark and Glacier Bear
> > Pelt. I've spent *hours* on both. Not hours killing without getting. But
> > hours looking!
> >
> > What is the fun in spending 9 hours waiting in Everfrost and getting no
> > Glacier Bear appear? What is the fun in spending 5 hours in South Karana
> > and getting no Grizzleknot?
> >
> > This is the reason this game is failing. Spending hours doing nothing
> > waiting for things to appear. This isn't a quest. Its torture. Fix it
> > Verant.
> >
Matt Frisch
into the ether:
>Alasdair Allan wrote:
>>
>
>> What is the fun in spending 9 hours waiting in Everfrost and getting no
>> Glacier Bear appear? What is the fun in spending 5 hours in South Karana
>> and getting no Grizzleknot?
>
>What is the fun in spending 20 minutes to finish the quest? Hell, what is the fun of waiting for anything? Let's raise all exp to triple the nowmal
>rate so people can get to 50 3 times faster and won't have to wait so long. And let's make EVERYTHING in the game available from merchants.
His complaint is completely valid, and taking up an extreme opposite view
just makes you look stupid. There is a balance between instant-maxeq-50 and
camp-for-a-week-and-still-not-get-it. It doesn't exist in many quests, and
it should.
>> Spending hours doing nothing
>> waiting for things to appear. This isn't a quest. Its torture. Fix it
>> Verant.
>
>Torture for you.
If you don't consider paying money to sit around and do nothing for hours
at a time to be torture, then I strongly suggest you seek out a mental
health professional.
Gresh
Indeed, I agree.
Follow up questions: are you this belligerent and foul mouthed in
real life? Do you think phrasing things the way you do is an
effective way to promote positive change? Or do you just need to vent
once in a while?
Brian DeVine
the fun of waiting for anything? Let's raise all exp to triple the nowmal
>>rate so people can get to 50 3 times faster and won't have to wait so
long. And let's make EVERYTHING in the game available from merchants.
>
Why, if its so horribly boring and time consuming, are you still doing the
quest? Why do you need this stuff? Cant you live without it or do you like
being pained. Its just some silly armor. If its so hard to get then forget
it. I know this will probably get negative replys but for gods sake its just
stuff that you will probably be selling in a week or just put on and never
think about it again. No use losing sleep over.
John Henders
>On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 00:14:21 -0500, Lawless <law...@smgfan.com> scribed
>into the ether:
>>
>>Torture for you.
>If you don't consider paying money to sit around and do nothing for hours
>at a time to be torture, then I strongly suggest you seek out a mental
>health professional.
No!! We still need people with these skills, at least until robotics
improves a bit more. Imagine the crisis in the fast food industry alone
if people with high tolerances for tedium weren't available.
--
Artificial Intelligence stands no chance against Natural Stupidity.
GAT d- -p+(--) c++++ l++ u++ t- m--- W--- !v
b+++ e* s-/+ n-(?) h++ f+g+ w+++ y*
Michael Bancroft
of the aviak village and up north by the centaur village...not in the
villages, but just outside them....to the east. I have killed grizzie
twice, once by aviak village as a wandering mob and once by centaur
village while wandering. I have also found several other named npc's in
these same general areas. It is a rare spawn though, and I have spent a
lot of time in s. karanas. Definitely stay on east side of zone just
outside of the villages...I hope this will help ya a little bit...I
thought the spawn rate would increase due to the quests, but apparently
it hasn't yet.
Alasdair Allan wrote:
>
> Yeah, I'm annoyed.
>
> What the fuck is with the game design.
>
> 2 of the Shaman armour pieces need - Grizzleknot Bark and Glacier Bear
> Pelt. I've spent *hours* on both. Not hours killing without getting. But
> hours looking!
>
> What is the fun in spending 9 hours waiting in Everfrost and getting no
> Glacier Bear appear? What is the fun in spending 5 hours in South Karana
> and getting no Grizzleknot?
>
> This is the reason this game is failing. Spending hours doing nothing
> waiting for things to appear. This isn't a quest. Its torture. Fix it
> Verant.
>
Lawless
>
> >What is the fun in spending 20 minutes to finish the quest? Hell, what is the fun of waiting for anything? Let's raise all exp to triple the nowmal
> >rate so people can get to 50 3 times faster and won't have to wait so long. And let's make EVERYTHING in the game available from merchants.
>
> His complaint is completely valid, and taking up an extreme opposite view
> just makes you look stupid. There is a balance between instant-maxeq-50 and
> camp-for-a-week-and-still-not-get-it. It doesn't exist in many quests, and
> it should.
You're not supopsed to be able to get every single item you ant. That's why it's a player driven economy. The game isn't supposed to be "finished."
You're not suposed to be able to win it. If everyone was able to get every item they wanted very easily, it wouldn't be a challenge.
> >> Spending hours doing nothing
> >> waiting for things to appear. This isn't a quest. Its torture. Fix it
> >> Verant.
> >
> >Torture for you.
>
> If you don't consider paying money to sit around and do nothing for hours
> at a time to be torture, then I strongly suggest you seek out a mental
> health professional.
If you want to sit around and do nothing for hours that's your business, and it's also your decision. You don't have to sit around and camp for an
hour. The game wasn't meant to be played that way. So if you're upset because you can't get items that you feel you deserve to have becvause you
camped them, then don't send Verant their monthly check.
dre
Cenobite
wrote:
>Grow up.
I think if you were in the UK too and calls cost what they cost us
here you would loathe to spend that much time and money and be waiting
around.
I think his points are more than valid.
Damocles
Maybe you should think about changing your telecom system instead.
Ditch the monarchy to make up for the lost revenues.
Gordon Chapman
wrote:
>
>Maybe you should think about changing your telecom system instead.
>Ditch the monarchy to make up for the lost revenues.
>
Yeah, cause it's a lot easier to destroy the monarchy, reclaim all
their possessions and install a nationwide free telephone system than
to get a bunch of jumped up hackers to pull their fingers out and get
their game working properly.
G.
--
Software engineering is an ongoing battle between software
engineers constantly striving to create bigger and better
idiot-proof programs and the Universe constantly striving to
create bigger and better idiots.
Right now the Universe is winning.
Gordon W. Chapman
--Lead Artist
--Climax Group
--gor...@climax.co.uk
Alx
Alex
--
Remove the X if replying by email.
Damocles
wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 17:27:05 GMT, phae...@yahoo.com (Damocles)
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Maybe you should think about changing your telecom system instead.
>>Ditch the monarchy to make up for the lost revenues.
>>
>
>Yeah, cause it's a lot easier to destroy the monarchy, reclaim all
>their possessions and install a nationwide free telephone system than
>to get a bunch of jumped up hackers to pull their fingers out and get
>their game working properly.
The monarchy should be deposed on general principle. It'd save me some
tax money here in Canada to not have to pay for a Governor General and
I wouldn't have to mumble along to "God save the Queen" every so
often.
Alasdair Allan
> On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 16:32:04 GMT, Ma...@cenobite.coNO-SPAM.uk
> (Cenobite) wrote:
> >I think if you were in the UK too and calls cost what they cost us
> >here you would loathe to spend that much time and money and be waiting
> >around.
> >
> >I think his points are more than valid.
>
> Ditch the monarchy to make up for the lost revenues.
Nah, we are a capitalist country where the market sets price.
We don't go in for your telecoms socialism, Commie boy.
Alasdair Allan
You aren't going to find many arguments *against* abolishing the monarchy in
Scotland.
Was funny, when Diana choked to death on Dodi's cock, all the "people in the
street" interviews in Scotland had to be stage-managed by the media so they
didn't end up with a load of people who just didn't give a fuck. Or were
celebrating a parasite dying.
But that has little to do with the economy and the choice of Britain to
reject the socialism of North America and (at least attempt to) go for a
competitive telecoms market.
CG
> reject the socialism of North America and (at least attempt to) go for a
> competitive telecoms market.
Wow, off topic, do you really believe that the USA is more socialist than
Britain?
Canada, yeah.
Alasdair Allan
In Telecoms yes. Thats why you have local government controlled monopolies
with regulated prices and we have competing local companies which charge a
market rate.
One is not necessarily better than the other.
Or do you see socialism and see "insult". Oh wait, you're a Yank, no
thinking for yourself, indoctrination of "evil" buzzwords.
jav...@my-deja.com
"Alasdair Allan" <postm...@x-static.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> CG <cjga...@NOSPAMMYgannonconsulting.com> wrote
> > > But that has little to do with the economy and the choice of
Britain to
> > > reject the socialism of North America and (at least attempt to) go
for a
> > > competitive telecoms market.
> >
> > Wow, off topic, do you really believe that the USA is more socialist
than
> > Britain?
>
> In Telecoms yes. Thats why you have local government controlled
monopolies
> with regulated prices and we have competing local companies which
charge a
> market rate.
>
> One is not necessarily better than the other.
>
> Or do you see socialism and see "insult". Oh wait, you're a Yank, no
> thinking for yourself, indoctrination of "evil" buzzwords.
Oh Wait, you're from the UK. Guess you're a Brit...
Generalizations are not good.
The local markets have been deregulated here. We do have competition.
Bottom line is our Telecom backbone is better then anywhere. The UK
backbone is poor, and will likely remain crap, since its simply a means
of revenue, and the 'old boy' network exists more over there then here,
to a degree most Americans would not understand.
Personally, I'm glad most of the 'Brits' seem to not understand the
differences living here and there. We have a standard of living so much
higher, for so many more people, that they cannot comprehend.
Another thing that pisses me off is VAT, for a business...But thats
another story.
Oh, and think about 'National Socialism'. Seems it was pretty popular in
Germany in 1933....
-Richard
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
mida...@my-deja.com
jav...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Personally, I'm glad most of the 'Brits' seem to not understand
> the differences living here and there. We have a standard of
> living so much higher, for so many more people, that they cannot
> comprehend.
Reading stuff like this reminds me what goofs many people are on both
sides of the Atlantic. A lot of Americans like to use the
term "degenerate socialists" to describe Europeans. And a lot of
Europeans seem to take pleasure in decrying the "harsh society"
or "Social Darwinism" of the USA.
The truth is that we live very much alike, have similar standards of
living, have similar social welfare systems, have similar economic
arrangements and emphasize recognizably similar values. We are all
welfare capitalist democracies now. And why not? It works better than
anything else people have come up with since absolute monarchy was
discredited.
I assume the people posting nonsense like the above either do not
travel, or just don't bother opening their eyes when they do.
> Another thing that pisses me off is VAT, for a business...But thats
> another story.
You prefer the USA'a byzantine income and property tax system?
You're a nut!
Here's a hint: Does it make sense to have 100+ million taxpayers
wasting hundreds of hours of their lives each year figuring out
multiple complicated and arbitrary federal, state and local tax
liabilities or to have a few million businesses doing the same
according to some sane and rational scheme?
>
> Oh, and think about 'National Socialism'. Seems it was pretty
> popular in Germany in 1933....
Cheap shot. Slavery was popular here in the 1850's, too. Lynching all
the way through the 1930s. And don't even mention what happened to the
Indians.
Canticle
jav...@my-deja.com wrote:
> The local markets have been deregulated here. We do have competition.
> Bottom line is our Telecom backbone is better then anywhere. The UK
> backbone is poor, and will likely remain crap, since its simply a means
*ROFL*
I can't speak for the UK, but I can DEFINITELY speak for the US telecom
backbone since I spent the better part of several years working with a
major US telecom (not MCI. Bigger).
The US telecom infrastructure SUCKS. You have cities in which calling
across the street can be long distance (Chicago, can't remember the
street name, but it's there). You have copper lines feeding into areas
built only in the last decade which SHOULD be fiber optic. You have
local telephone companies gouging long distance carriers on line fees
because they are owned in whole or in part by a rival national telco.
You have local telcos playing idiotic sandbox games with national ISPs
because said ISPs are owned by a rival Telco, going so far as to lie
about capacity in order to prevent new POPs from competing with them.
You have companies selling WAY over the capacity of their network hoping
that they can increase capacity before they lose an 'acceptable' number
of customers (churn).
It's hardly what I would call better than anywhere. Better than most?
Yes.
Canada's is fairly decent because it's monolithic. Until recently,
EVERYONE had to follow the same standards, so we're pretty much all
fiber optic with way more capacity available than what is
used...although with the deregulation of the late 80s, early 90s and the
privitization of several once public utilities, the model is beginning
to follow that of the US...and all the problems associated with it are
starting to crop up as well, particularily OVERSELLING capacity (we can
support 5000 customers, we'll sign up 10000, and hope we can make enough
to upgrade capacity before we lose 2000).
Jeff-boy
Canticle
CG wrote:
> > But that has little to do with the economy and the choice of Britain to
> > reject the socialism of North America and (at least attempt to) go for a
> > competitive telecoms market.
> Wow, off topic, do you really believe that the USA is more socialist than
> Britain?
> Canada, yeah.
Canada's probably the most socialist of the three.
But if you want real socialism, check out Sweden.
Jeff-boy
Matt Frisch
into the ether:
Except for the weather, sweden is about the best place to live.
Well, that and nearly everyone there smokes. Bleh.
Sure you pay out the ass in taxes, but unlike most other governments, they
are actually fairly efficient with it...and not having to buy any seperate
health insurance is a huge plus.
Guy Banham
Alasdair, you are one sincerely sick fuck. I am in awe.
On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 09:18:19 GMT, "Alasdair Allan"
<posth...@x-static.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Damocles <phae...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> On Mon, 25 Oct 1999 10:24:37 GMT, gor...@climax.co.uk (Gordon Chapman)
>> wrote:
>> >Yeah, cause it's a lot easier to destroy the monarchy, reclaim all
>> >their possessions and install a nationwide free telephone system than
>> >to get a bunch of jumped up hackers to pull their fingers out and get
>> >their game working properly.
>>
>> The monarchy should be deposed on general principle. It'd save me some
>> tax money here in Canada to not have to pay for a Governor General and
>> I wouldn't have to mumble along to "God save the Queen" every so
>> often.
>
>You aren't going to find many arguments *against* abolishing the monarchy in
>Scotland.
>
>Was funny, when Diana choked to death on Dodi's cock, all the "people in the
>street" interviews in Scotland had to be stage-managed by the media so they
>didn't end up with a load of people who just didn't give a fuck. Or were
>celebrating a parasite dying.
>
>But that has little to do with the economy and the choice of Britain to
>reject the socialism of North America and (at least attempt to) go for a
>competitive telecoms market.
>
dre
Alasdair Allan
> "Alasdair Allan" <postm...@x-static.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > One is not necessarily better than the other.
> >
> > Or do you see socialism and see "insult". Oh wait, you're a Yank, no
> > thinking for yourself, indoctrination of "evil" buzzwords.
>
>
> Oh Wait, you're from the UK. Guess you're a Brit...
>
> Generalizations are not good.
>
> Bottom line is our Telecom backbone is better then anywhere. The UK
> backbone is poor, and will likely remain crap, since its simply a means
> to a degree most Americans would not understand.
Where the fuck do you get this shite?
The US telecoms network is *at least* ten years behind the UK's network
infrastructure according to the OECD. In addition, I believe that some
parts of the States still use analogue switches - technology at least 30
years out of date.
Don't get me wrong, your socialised telecoms are nice for net users. But
your network is out of date and under-invested because of this.
Matthew Mc Clement
>
> jav...@my-deja.com wrote
> > "Alasdair Allan" <postm...@x-static.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > One is not necessarily better than the other.
> > >
> > > Or do you see socialism and see "insult". Oh wait, you're a Yank, no
> > > thinking for yourself, indoctrination of "evil" buzzwords.
> >
> >
> > Oh Wait, you're from the UK. Guess you're a Brit...
> >
> > Generalizations are not good.
> >
> > The local markets have been deregulated here. We do have competition.
> > Bottom line is our Telecom backbone is better then anywhere. The UK
> > backbone is poor, and will likely remain crap, since its simply a means
> > of revenue, and the 'old boy' network exists more over there then here,
> > to a degree most Americans would not understand.
>
> Where the fuck do you get this shite?
>
> The US telecoms network is *at least* ten years behind the UK's network
> infrastructure according to the OECD. In addition, I believe that some
> parts of the States still use analogue switches - technology at least 30
> years out of date.
>
> Don't get me wrong, your socialised telecoms are nice for net users. But
> your network is out of date and under-invested because of this.
>
Oh yes, the American telephone system needs some serious work. But you know what
pisses me off the most? They get away with it being so old. BT have this huge
shiny network of nice equipment, but look how long its taking them to introduce
ADSL.
Hell, most people agree we should have had it light years ahead of the
Americans, but nope there are already commercial versions of ADSL available in
the US that the average Joe Bloggs can have. ADSL solutions exist here in the
UK, but they cost enough that you may as well get a leased line.
Grrr...and the cable companies aren't doing much better. All the trials that I
have heard of so far require you to sit behind some stupid firewall or proxy
setup on the cable companies end.
Matt(Who wants a big fat pipe to the 'net cheap :))
Sophist
static.demon.co.uk says...
> jav...@my-deja.com wrote
> > "Alasdair Allan" <postm...@x-static.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > > One is not necessarily better than the other.
> > >
> > > Or do you see socialism and see "insult". Oh wait, you're a Yank, no
> > > thinking for yourself, indoctrination of "evil" buzzwords.
> >
> >
> > Oh Wait, you're from the UK. Guess you're a Brit...
> >
> > Generalizations are not good.
> >
> > The local markets have been deregulated here. We do have competition.
> > Bottom line is our Telecom backbone is better then anywhere. The UK
> > backbone is poor, and will likely remain crap, since its simply a means
> > of revenue, and the 'old boy' network exists more over there then here,
> > to a degree most Americans would not understand.
>
> Where the fuck do you get this shite?
>
> The US telecoms network is *at least* ten years behind the UK's network
> infrastructure according to the OECD. In addition, I believe that some
> parts of the States still use analogue switches - technology at least 30
> years out of date.
>
> Don't get me wrong, your socialised telecoms are nice for net users. But
> your network is out of date and under-invested because of this.
>
>
And the UK is about 10 years behind Canada. Well, closer to 3-5
actually, depending on what segment of it you're looking at.
Where one really see's a difference, however, is in services to the
end user, and costs of those services. The funny part is that Canada
did establish its infrastructure based very much on a government
controlled, socialist approach. But then the term "socialism"
doesn't really scare me as I'm not aware of any 1st world nation
that isn't at least in part socialist in nature.
Sophist
dre
to around 500 other homes in your neighborhood, depending on who there
subscribes to cable service) that is connected to a much faster fiber
network (still owned by the cable company and still local) that is
connected to the larger fiber networks (sprintnet, mci, just out to
the internet in general).
You get your own dynamic IP address. Your connx is not proxied out in
any way unless you are doing it at your own house on your own network.
There is your big fat pipe. Just be sure to turn off your file and
prinrter sharing or else you might find someone using your hard drive
as their external storage device.
Oh and here's to hoping you have a halfway decent cable company
(clink).
dre
rumors about cable in the UK but don't even remotely know how they set
it up. sorry.
Still, here's to hoping you got a halfway decent cable company
(clink).
Canticle
Sophist wrote:
> And the UK is about 10 years behind Canada. Well, closer to 3-5
> actually, depending on what segment of it you're looking at.
> Where one really see's a difference, however, is in services to the
> end user, and costs of those services. The funny part is that Canada
> did establish its infrastructure based very much on a government
> controlled, socialist approach. But then the term "socialism"
> doesn't really scare me as I'm not aware of any 1st world nation
> that isn't at least in part socialist in nature.
I have absolutely no complaints (so far) about the Canadian telecom
infrastructure. Hell, in Winnipeg (serviced by the worst of the Canadian
telcos, MTS) we have about a dozen ISPs, have of which offer ADSL along
with MTS's own ISP, Sympatico (MTS pretty much owns every other ISP
other than Pangea, though). I believe ADSL has been available in most of
the city for over a year now as well. Relatively cheap phone rates as
well...there's a lot to be said for our infrastructure =).
Jeff-boy
Alasdair Allan
> Alasdair Allan wrote:
> > The US telecoms network is *at least* ten years behind the UK's network
> > infrastructure according to the OECD. In addition, I believe that some
> > parts of the States still use analogue switches - technology at least 30
> > years out of date.
> >
> > Don't get me wrong, your socialised telecoms are nice for net users.
But
> > your network is out of date and under-invested because of this.
> >
>
know what
> pisses me off the most? They get away with it being so old. BT have this
huge
> shiny network of nice equipment, but look how long its taking them to
introduce
> ADSL.
Well thats the problem. The UK's choice was the competitive environment.
The time it takes for the market to *become* competitive is a lot longer
than they have been trying to achieve this (if it *is* even possibe).
So in the meantime, BT will try and get away with all it can. And whats
good enough for BT s good enough for NTL/Telewest.
> Hell, most people agree we should have had it light years ahead of the
> Americans, but nope there are already commercial versions of ADSL
available in
> the US that the average Joe Bloggs can have. ADSL solutions exist here in
the
> UK, but they cost enough that you may as well get a leased line.
But remember there is a reason for this.
Because Baby Bells have monopolies of the local loop in most areas, cable
companies were disbarred from offering telecoms (this is changing but
slowly, most "cable" is delivered by "air" transmission not cable!) so in
order to access the burgeoning internet market, cablemodems were a "good
idea".
This was obviously a preferrable solution to old dial-up, so Baby Bells
launched ADSL to compete with this new technology (which isn't actually that
new).
In the UK, cable companies sell phone service, so they get a revenue from
these calls that US cable cos weren't in the market for. Result - no
incentive for cablemodems.
It also means, no competition (remember this was the UK regulatory goal) to
dial-up. Result - BT avoid rolling out ADSL. Its funny but the US'
socialised telecoms model has (contrary to normally observed outcomes) led
to more rapid progress!
> Grrr...and the cable companies aren't doing much better. All the trials
that I
> have heard of so far require you to sit behind some stupid firewall or
proxy
> setup on the cable companies end.
If corporate America was implementing the Internet today, they sure as fuck
wouldn't let it be as open as it is...
Alasdair Allan
> > infrastructure according to the OECD. In addition, I believe that some
> > parts of the States still use analogue switches - technology at least 30
> > years out of date.
> >
> > Don't get me wrong, your socialised telecoms are nice for net users.
But
> > your network is out of date and under-invested because of this.
>
> actually, depending on what segment of it you're looking at.
I've never seen such claims before. Canadan still has analogue switches and
some rather basic technology in areas. The UK is 100% digital and has been
for some time.
> Where one really see's a difference, however, is in services to the
> end user, and costs of those services.
Well there is the government subsidised ADSL programme. Not sure what else
you mean as the services listed by your telcos are a small subset of those
available from BT and Kingston.
> The funny part is that Canada
> did establish its infrastructure based very much on a government
> controlled, socialist approach. But then the term "socialism"
> doesn't really scare me as I'm not aware of any 1st world nation
> that isn't at least in part socialist in nature.
And neither it should be. *Infrastructure* shows many desireable effects of
being socialised and telecomms is most definately a vital piece of
infrastructure on which a successful economy is based.
Leo Condie
and you get free local calls at the weekends. It helps, but i agree it aint
enough. Free all the time, eh?
Alasdair Allan wrote in message <01bf247f$013a2ea0$c70201c0@dell40>...
Sophist
static.demon.co.uk says...
>
> I've never seen such claims before. Canadan still has analogue switches and
> some rather basic technology in areas. The UK is 100% digital and has been
> for some time.
Canada still has a rather wide dispersion of analog switches, but
then that has little to do with technological advancement. Canada is
one of the largest countries in the world in total land mass,
compared to Britain which is one of the smallest. Thus we have vast
tracks of our country that are very sparsely populated. You still
find a lot of the older analog technology out there. So in this
context "100%" digital is hardly a telling measure. Quite frankly I
hope Canada is never fully digital, as in many cases that's just a
flagrant waste of resources. Analog is not inherently bad, nor
backward from a technological point of view. If all I need to do is
make a phone call, ever, I certainly don't need full digital service
to do it.
All population centers, however, have been fully digital for some
time now. As an interesting side note the CRTC (Canadian Radio and
Telecommunications Commission) recently passes an order that the
entire country must be fully digital by the year 2002 (I think that
was the date). This has really stirred up a lot of flack, primarily
because the remote rural regions that are still using the older
analog infrastructure have no desire for the digital service, nor do
they want the added cost of it.
>
> > Where one really see's a difference, however, is in services to the
> > end user, and costs of those services.
>
> Well there is the government subsidised ADSL programme. Not sure what else
> you mean as the services listed by your telcos are a small subset of those
> available from BT and Kingston.
Actually ADSL is an excellent example. We've got full access to both
2k and 7k ADSL here, and it is widely used in both the home and
office environment. I don't recall what the 7k lines cost, but the
2k run just over $1000 a year. What is the cost for an ADSL in the
UK?
What other services are you referring to that BT offers that are not
available here? I can't think of any. Although if we compared the
like services I'm sure we'd see a noticeable cost difference. That's
basically what I was driving at with the above.
As an example BT recently setup 800, weekend access lines for
dialup, thus eliminating the per-use charge for the line during that
time. This is a rather archaic approach from our standpoint as we
can get full dialup access, 24/7, with no per-use charges, for
around $20 a month.
These are the types of things I'm thinking of here.
>
> > The funny part is that Canada
> > did establish its infrastructure based very much on a government
> > controlled, socialist approach. But then the term "socialism"
> > doesn't really scare me as I'm not aware of any 1st world nation
> > that isn't at least in part socialist in nature.
>
> And neither it should be. *Infrastructure* shows many desireable effects of
> being socialised and telecomms is most definately a vital piece of
> infrastructure on which a successful economy is based.
>
>
Agreed
Sophist
Alasdair Allan
else
> > you mean as the services listed by your telcos are a small subset of
those
> > available from BT and Kingston.
>
> Actually ADSL is an excellent example. We've got full access to both
> 2k and 7k ADSL here, and it is widely used in both the home and
> office environment. I don't recall what the 7k lines cost, but the
> 2k run just over $1000 a year. What is the cost for an ADSL in the
> UK?
That is the point I was making. ADSL is *hugely* subsidised by Ottowa. I
for one am glad that the UK isn't using public money to subsidise a service
of interest to a marginal proportion of the population.
> What other services are you referring to that BT offers that are not
> available here? I can't think of any. Although if we compared the
> like services I'm sure we'd see a noticeable cost difference. That's
> basically what I was driving at with the above.
I was talking about the services available to the public through their
connection to System X exchanges which offer a variety of ancilliary
services. The alternative Bellcore technology, while less efficient can
offer most of the subscriber services that System X can (I'm sure a full
coparison can be made but I don't have the time) but then, as you freely
admit, Canada has shitloads of antiquated analogue switches which can never
offer CLIP, CallMinder, CallWaiting and the vast number of other services
available.
> As an example BT recently setup 800, weekend access lines for
> dialup, thus eliminating the per-use charge for the line during that
> time. This is a rather archaic approach from our standpoint as we
> can get full dialup access, 24/7, with no per-use charges, for
> around $20 a month.
You don't understand the UK market and are comparing apples with oranges.
All your local calls are costless, in the UK we do not have such a subsidy.
In return the "interconnect" for non-local calls in the UK is approximately
one fifth of the same fee in Canada, therefore long distance calls are a
fraction of the price of Canadian long distance rates.
Alasdair Allan
> By the way, if any UK players didnt know, BTinternet costs £11.75 a month,
> and you get free local calls at the weekends. It helps, but i agree it
aint
> enough. Free all the time, eh?
The BT deal is very poor compared to what is available elsewhere.
Sophist
static.demon.co.uk says...
> Sophist <neve...@nospam.com> wrote
> > In article <01bf247f$013a2ea0$c70201c0@dell40>, posthamster@x-
> > static.demon.co.uk says...
> > > Well there is the government subsidised ADSL programme. Not sure what
> else
> > > you mean as the services listed by your telcos are a small subset of
> those
> > > available from BT and Kingston.
> >
> > Actually ADSL is an excellent example. We've got full access to both
> > 2k and 7k ADSL here, and it is widely used in both the home and
> > office environment. I don't recall what the 7k lines cost, but the
> > 2k run just over $1000 a year. What is the cost for an ADSL in the
> > UK?
>
> That is the point I was making. ADSL is *hugely* subsidised by Ottowa. I
> for one am glad that the UK isn't using public money to subsidise a service
> of interest to a marginal proportion of the population.
Actually this is false as far as I know. Ottawa's involvement in the
Telco's is very limited now, except wrt regulation.
But then that really isn't at issue here. The issue is this
supremacy you claim the UK has. I'm still waiting for some evidence
to that end. Clearly it's not towards the home market. And it
definitely isn't in the realm of the corporate market. Where exactly
is it? All the services you've listed so far we have in abundance,
and I'm sure at far lower costs.
>
> > What other services are you referring to that BT offers that are not
> > available here? I can't think of any. Although if we compared the
> > like services I'm sure we'd see a noticeable cost difference. That's
> > basically what I was driving at with the above.
>
> I was talking about the services available to the public through their
> connection to System X exchanges which offer a variety of ancilliary
> services. The alternative Bellcore technology, while less efficient can
> offer most of the subscriber services that System X can (I'm sure a full
> coparison can be made but I don't have the time) but then, as you freely
> admit, Canada has shitloads of antiquated analogue switches which can never
> offer CLIP, CallMinder, CallWaiting and the vast number of other services
> available.
Aye, we've got full access to all these services, and many more, in
our main metropolitan areas. The UK is in no way ahead in this area.
More importantly we have access to them at a fraction of the cost.
And as I noted in the last post, the analogue switches are there for
a reason. People in the rural areas don't WANT these types of
services nor are they willing to pay for them. Unfortunately the
CRTC is forcing the issue and they will have them and will pay for
them in the not to distant future.
You imply that ANY analogue is a bad thing. I just don't agree with
that, but then this might simply be a due to a difference in
surroundings. Canada is huge, the UK is not. This obviously will
force far different approaches to many facets of life. If I'm Joe
Farmer up in the northern reaches of Alberta, and have absolutely no
NEED or WANT for these lovely digital services, why MUST I have
them? Why is digital access to me something that is in any way good?
And what of the cost? I would imagine one could lay the entire UK
infrastructure for the same cost as one of our larger provinces
(say, Ontario). A complete digital infrastructure is NOT necessarily
the best route to go. It might be in the UK simply because it is so
small. It is not in Canada. Scope, therefore, is not the same thing
as overall quality and cost of the service in this context.
To use your phrase, it is very much like comparing apples and
oranges.
>
> > As an example BT recently setup 800, weekend access lines for
> > dialup, thus eliminating the per-use charge for the line during that
> > time. This is a rather archaic approach from our standpoint as we
> > can get full dialup access, 24/7, with no per-use charges, for
> > around $20 a month.
>
> You don't understand the UK market and are comparing apples with oranges.
> All your local calls are costless, in the UK we do not have such a subsidy.
> In return the "interconnect" for non-local calls in the UK is approximately
> one fifth of the same fee in Canada, therefore long distance calls are a
> fraction of the price of Canadian long distance rates.
What are your long distance rates?
What constitutes "local" and "non-local" calls there? (That is to
say is it as simple as a call from one side of London to the other
falls under the "local" category, and a call from say London to
Birmingham constitute non-local?)
Also what are the costs for Internet access? Is it an hourly charge
or are there flat monthly rates available? Clearly if we're having a
discussion about the advancement of a nations telco service, access
(or not) to the "information highway" is an integral part of that.
A market is a market, lets find some common grounds and compare
then.
Sophist