"Unlimited" service NOT UNLIMITED
RB
UNfair!
Today I received this message from Netcom. Apparently, the
"unlimited" use that I paid for is NOT unlimited. Netcom makes
AOL look good!
> Dear Customer:
>
> You have accessed a POP that has reached near maximum level. As a high usage customer, you are being affected by Netcom's
> FAIR (Fair Access to Internet Resources) policy. Netcom's automated system prioritizes customer access according to
> programmed variables, including total hours of usage from the previous month. Customers with the lowest usage receive a higher
> priority to Internet access the system during periods of peak network demand.
>
> In order to minimize your restrictions, you will want to review or adjust your Internet usage patterns. If your account is restricted,
> you will receive a "Username or Password Incorrect" error message, and will not be able to login, or may be disconnected until
> network capacity becomes available.
>
> You may want to review other services which Netcom offers that will allow greater bandwidth for your Internet experience.
> Please visit http://www.netcom.com/services/servindex.html for alternative solutions that will accommodate your need.
>
> NETCOM's Terms and Conditions can be found on our Website at http://www.netcom.com/netcom/terms.html
>
Cary R Gouge
In article <6juhlr$e...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
gregglns...@ix.netcom.com (Gregg) wrote:
>On Tue, 19 May 1998 16:13:48 -0600, RB wrote:
>
>>UNfair!
>
>INcorrect!
>
>>Today I received this message from Netcom. Apparently, the
>>"unlimited" use that I paid for is NOT unlimited.
>
>Usage inplies an active communication, sending data both ways. Since
>the implementation of "unlimited" service in 1996, too many people
>seem to feel some odd sort of compulsion to be connected at all times.
>I've known of people who ran up as much as 400 hours in a given
>month... and there are only 30x24=720 hours *in* a month!
>
>There are all too many people who treat a $20/month account as if it
>was a dedicated connection to the net, set their email clients to
>check for mail every 10-15 minutes, then go off about their business,
>leaving the computer unattended. Others really do sit at the
>computer, online, for a great part of the day; those who spend more
>than 100-150 hours online each month might be well advised to give
>serious consideration to acquiring a life.
>
>Back in March of '97, Dave Garrison of Netcom informed his customers
>that "We've found that less than three percent of NETCOM customers
>account for thirty percent of our resource use." Other ISPs have
>discovered that their figures are even worse. No ISP can afford to
>sit back and do nothing to stop resource hogs, as each login ties up a
>phone line, a modem, and system resources that must be shared between
>a certain number of users.
>
>My own thought is that, because of such widespread abuse, the days of
>the "unlimited" Internet account are nearing an end. There are early
>signs of this: Earlier this year, ibm.net changed from $19.95 for
>"unlimited" usage to $19.95 for 100 hours/month, with a fee of
>$1.95/hour for additional use. AT&T's Internet service, att.net,
>recently went to a plan that charges $19.95 for 150 hours/month, with
>additional time billed at the rate of 99 cents/hour. It's interesting
>to note that it was AT&T who began the "unlimited" concept two years
>ago.
>
>>Netcom makes AOL look good!
>
>Then your solution is obvious, isn't it?
>
>Of course, in its own attempt to address the problem, AOL has just
>upped its fees by a couple of bucks a month. If that doesn't have the
>desired effect, they'll have no choice but to abandon the "unlimited"
>concept and go to an x dollars for so many hours type of access.
>Further, I'm told that every 15 minutes a box pops up that says that
>you'll be disconnected unless you indicate that you want to stay on
>line.
>
>A business needs eventually to make a profit, RB, and all ISPs are
>trying to figure out their best course of action to take to limit
>those resource hogs who are spoiling things for the rest of us.
>
>--
>.... Gregg
>
Unlimited means no restrictions, no limits, no boundaries, no conditions.
I can not even log on anymore because of this bs policy. AOL got sued for
this same crap.
I feel it is a breach of contract and false advertisement to tell potential
users you offer unlimited access but when they join say unlimited is not
really unlimited, but rather less than 100 hours per month. I think someone
should see about bringing a class action lawsuit against NETCOM. AOL had to
pay! But what I am most upset about is that I did not receive any prior
notice, just error messages and disconnections once the policy was
implemented, then it is to late to limit your usage to keep from being
effected by this "FAIR" policy. NETCOM did not tell anyone because they new
most high usage users would go walking. I hope you do, I have. Maybe it
will send a message. Moreover, when I do log on, I have noticed my
connection speed is lower than normal -- can't give the high usage person a
good connection. Bottom line is, I paid for unlimited access, and if I want
to log-on for 720 hours a month GREG. I should be allowed to. If NETCOM
doesn't want that...then cahnge the advertisement....say $19.95 for 70
hours, or whatever they consider low usage.
To me, it is Corporate American at it again. Screw the little guy. So
Greg, you go ahead and take it, but they are still to many companies out
there that will still, at least for now, give you what you pay for
"UNLIMITED" access.
Cary R Gouge
In article <357056c4...@nntp.netcruiser>,
gregglns...@ix.netcom.com (Gregg) wrote:
>On Sat, 23 May 1998 22:40:01 GMT, Ty Fairchild wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 May 1998 05:18:00 -0700, gregglns...@ix.netcom.com (Gregg)
>>wrote, and I quote:
>
>>:My own thought is that, because of such widespread abuse, the days of
>>:the "unlimited" Internet account are nearing an end.
>>
>>Agreed. It appears there are those who have grave difficulty
understanding
>>the difference between "unlimited access" and "~/usage."
>
>Bingo.
>
>>Abuse by resource hogs, including that conducted under color of moral
>>self-justification, is still abuse. The consequences are all too
predictable.
>
>These are the very people who are making the concept of "unlimited"
>unworkable. They'll screw it up at one ISP, then move on to another,
>complaining all the while at the unfairness of it all.
>
>Sadly, it was predictable; they're the last ones to take a shit and
>the first to wipe their ass. :-(
>
>--
>.... Gregg
>
But there are those who don't understand the law of contracts
and advertisement. If you use the word unlimited, then provide
it. If you don't want to offer that unlimited service, then say so,
ISP's can not have it both ways either.
Pamela Gross
>On Tue, 19 May 1998 16:13:48 -0600, RB wrote:
>
>>UNfair!
>
>INcorrect!
>
>>Today I received this message from Netcom. Apparently, the
>>"unlimited" use that I paid for is NOT unlimited.
>
>Usage inplies an active communication, sending data both ways. Since
>the implementation of "unlimited" service in 1996, too many people
>seem to feel some odd sort of compulsion to be connected at all times.
>I've known of people who ran up as much as 400 hours in a given
>month... and there are only 30x24=720 hours *in* a month!
>
>There are all too many people who treat a $20/month account as if it
>was a dedicated connection to the net, set their email clients to
>check for mail every 10-15 minutes, then go off about their business,
>leaving the computer unattended. Others really do sit at the
>computer, online, for a great part of the day; those who spend more
>than 100-150 hours online each month might be well advised to give
>serious consideration to acquiring a life.
>
Oh, no...I checked and mine is almost 5 days this month!
I can't afford hourly charges. But maintaining our support group's
Web page does take me a lot of time. Don't know what to do.
Worried Newbie
--
Pamela Gross * be...@ix.netcom.com
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1962/
Save the Net! http://www.cauce.org/
Psst! Have a personal or professional interest in lupus,fibromyalgia,
Sjogren's Syndrome, or other rheumatic diseases?
http://www.silcom.com/~sblc/
SPECIAL ALERT: If you think people receiving federal disability
benefits should be encouraged to WORK if they can, please support
The Work Incentives Improvement Act!
Go to http://www.silcom.com/~sblc/hotpress.html to find out what
you can do to improve the lives of a LOT of people (including me)
and to spend your tax dollars more wisely! Please act now as time
is short (hence this Emergency Signature Campaign).
Cary R Gouge
In article <6k98ft$g...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
gregglns...@ix.netcom.com (Gregg) wrote:
>On Sun, 24 May 1998 05:27:28 GMT, Pamela Gross wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 May 1998 05:18:00 -0700, gregglns...@ix.netcom.com
>>(Gregg) wrote:
>
> //snipped//
>
>>>those who spend more than 100-150 hours online each month might be well
>>>advised to give serious consideration to acquiring a life.
>>>
>>Oh, no...I checked and mine is almost 5 days this month!
>
>Heh. Make sure they're all *you*. A week or so back, I received an
>automated email from Netcom telling me that I'd been logged on twice
>on more than one occasion. Checking the cruzifo page revealed that
>gregglns had three logins from Monterey, CA (a place I haven't been
>to since 1982) that amounted to about five *days* total online.
>Needless to say, I quickly changed my password and "secret word".
>
>I'd advise anybody to check their account periodically at
>< http://www.ix.netcom.com/bin/cruzinfo >, particularly if they're in
>the habit of checking their Netcom email while logged into a different
>provider. Should you find such an event has occurred, send an
>advisory email to secu...@netcom.com
>
>>I can't afford hourly charges. But maintaining our support group's
>>Web page does take me a lot of time. Don't know what to do.
>>
>>Worried Newbie
>
>Maintaining a web page may well take a lot of time, but it needn't be
>time spent online. I maintain several in my spare time, and usually
>do them in Front Page, touch 'em up a little by hand if need be, then
>when they're ready, upload them with WS_FTP. If the price of Front
>Page is a little steep for you, you can do a pretty decent job of it
>with Netscape Composer, which though not quite as powerful, does have
>an unbeatable price tag - it's free! :)
>
>Maybe you should subscribe to netcom.netcruiser.www and pick up some
>tips. Some really helpful people hang out there.
>
>--
>.... Gregg
>
See Greg, Netcom can not even keep up with how many hours "you" are online.
Why not say everyone is over the limit and restrict them. Your word against
theirs. Then they can sign up more customers, take their money, restrict
folks like me, and deposit more profits at the end of the day.
barbara pattist
On Sun, 24 May 1998 12:45:28 GMT, dsp...@elmlawnfarms.org (Don
Specht) wrote:
>
> Many of us stay online 80 to 120
>hours a month, but it's usually continous activity and often a large
>portion of these hours are during off-peak times.
>
Why would continuous activity be better than on-again- off-again
usage for the same length of time, or isn't that what you meant?
barbara.. who just checked and finds over 200 hours for this
month...ouch.
Cary R Gouge
In article <gergEtH...@netcom.com>,
ge...@netcom.com (Greg Andrews) wrote:
>Cary R Gouge <Go...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>
>> No where does it say limited...when I signed up it said unlimited.
>>
>
>*What* said unlimited? No one has been able to point to Netcom
>documentation that contains the word "unlimited". I'll gladly
>agree with you if you can point me to where Netcom says so.
>
>And no, it can't be something that said so months ago. It must
>say so *now*, after the recent revision of the Terms and Conditions
>documents.
>
> -Greg
>--
>::::::::::::::::::: Greg Andrews ge...@netcom.com :::::::::::::::::::
>Fortune Cookie: The problem with the gene pool is
> that there is no lifeguard.
>:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
No where in your terms and conditions or acceptable use policy does it state that Netcom will restrict
or limit usage to high usage customers. True Greg, the word unlimited is not in there. Unlimted was
the reason I joined Netcom. I just ask that they say it upfront X dollars gets you X hours. I
understand the companies postion. They want to get around not being able to provide adequate
service by "prioritizing" customers usage. This way they can say they are not placing limits or
restrictions, it merely depends on who is online and when. They want the best of both worlds. That
is my problem. Don't straddle the fence. It is totally misleading users and potential users, except for
Greg who knows and understands all things. Greg a self-proclaimed Messiah who plays God from
behind scences of these news groups...watch out folks next he will be offering you the Jim Jones
coolaid...that will keep you from accessing the POP to many hours each month!
Pamela Gross
On Sun, 24 May 1998 13:19:13 GMT, tw...@netcom.com (Ty Fairchild)
wrote:
>On Sun, 24 May 1998 05:27:28 GMT, be...@ix.netcom.com (Pamela Gross) wrote, and
>I quote:
>
>[. . .]
>
>:
>:I can't afford hourly charges. But maintaining our support group's
>:Web page does take me a lot of time. Don't know what to do.
>:
>:Worried Newbie
>
>Your html editing software should enable you to work offline, then upload the
>new and corrected page(s)at your convenience. Most good editiors also permit
>you to preview your work using your browser in the offline mode as well. That
>way your actual online editing/maintainence time is kept to a minimum. HTH.
I use Microsoft Front Page ( I'm told it's not the best program and
I'm sure it isn't!) and I'll see if it will let me do this somehow.
I've been thinking about why I'm on-line so much and I do think a lot
of it is just stuff I need to learn.
But also I know it's because I'm not well and am stuck in my cramped
and dingy apartment a lot...my roommate has a disability also and our
computers are our way of keeping in touch with the world outside when
we are forced to be inside.
--
Pamela Gross * be...@ix.netcom.com
Psst! Have a personal or professional interest in lupus,fibromyalgia,
Sjogren's Syndrome, or other rheumatic diseases?
http://www.silcom.com/~sblc/
SPECIAL ALERT: If you think people receiving federal disability
benefits should be encouraged to WORK if they can, please support
The Work Incentives Improvement Act! More info at our web site.
Pamela Gross
On Sun, 24 May 1998 16:25:56 -0400, dana...@ix.netcom.com (Dan)
wrote:
>
>Pamela, in yidish it's called "cheindale"! The cutest newbie around. ;)
>BTW, to ask a question, express a worry, one need not be apologetic. :-)
Thank you for cheering me up :)
>
>>>Maintaining a web page may well take a lot of time, but it needn't be
>>>time spent online. I maintain several in my spare time, and usually
>>>do them in Front Page, touch 'em up a little by hand if need be, then
>>>when they're ready, upload them with WS_FTP. If the price of Front
>>>Page is a little steep for you, you can do a pretty decent job of it
>>>with Netscape Composer, which though not quite as powerful, does have
>>>an unbeatable price tag - it's free! :)
>>>
I do use Front Page so now I know there's some hope! I will look for
a way to use the program off-line.
>>>Maybe you should subscribe to netcom.netcruiser.www and pick up some
>>>tips. Some really helpful people hang out there.
>>>
>>>--
>>>.... Gregg
>>>
>>
>> See Greg, Netcom can not even keep up with how many hours "you" are online.
>>Why not say everyone is over the limit and restrict them. Your word against
>>theirs. Then they can sign up more customers, take their money, restrict
>>folks like me, and deposit more profits at the end of the day.
>
>Cary, I doubt your 19.95 is going to make or break Netcom. They haven't
>made a profit yet as it takes years to recoup the investment.
>
>Complaining in these newsgroups that you deserve to be on line 720hrs/mo
>with one modem and one phone line dedicated to you only exasperates your
>fellow subscribers who do not want to pay for you.
>
>As to unlimited, it is interactive, not keep alive by artificial means.
This part I need to understand. Cary, are you one of those people who
set their computer to do a lot of stuff online when you're not there?
Because I would think ISPs would not like this very much.
barbara pattist
On Sun, 24 May 1998 18:06:36 GMT, dsp...@elmlawnfarms.org (Don
Specht) wrote:
>On Sun, 24 May 1998 16:34:49 GMT, pat...@ix.netcom.com (barbara
>pattist) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 May 1998 12:45:28 GMT, dsp...@elmlawnfarms.org (Don
>>Specht) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Many of us stay online 80 to 120
>>>hours a month, but it's usually continous activity and often a large
>>>portion of these hours are during off-peak times.
>>>
>> Why would continuous activity be better than on-again- off-again
>>usage for the same length of time, or isn't that what you meant?
>
>Hmmm...I wasn't clear... By continuous activity, I mean the terminal
>is active, rather than unoccupied while the connection is kept by a
>keep-alive.
>
>As to your point, you are correct...there is no difference.
>
I began wondering when I checked my usage at
http://www.ix.netcom.com/bin/cruzinfo and, in addition to the hours
connected, Netcom lists the total connections this month. I wonder if
there's a purpose of keeping track of that information? It might be
more useful to list prime-time usage if that's going to be a factor.
barbara
Pamela Gross
On Sun, 24 May 1998 21:06:11 GMT, Cary R Gouge <Go...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>
>No where in your terms and conditions or acceptable use policy does it state that Netcom will restrict
>or limit usage to high usage customers. Unlimted was
>the reason I joined Netcom. I just ask that they say it upfront X dollars gets you X hours.
I hate to play devil's advocate, but I have to agree with this part of
what you said.
I was told unlimited when I signed up because I asked about this
specifically. If that is changed, of course it is Netcom's
prerogative. But I would appreciate some notice, somewhere, of the
change.
I don't want to find out for the first time on my credit card bill!
(part I did not agree with removed)
Pamela Gross
On Sun, 24 May 1998 12:50:53 GMT, dsp...@elmlawnfarms.org (Don
Specht) wrote:
>Make sure you develop web procedures for yourself that cause you to do
>most of the work off-line. Lurk/post in n.n.www for tips and hints.
>It's a good group, imho.
>
>Netcom has the ability to monitor _when_ those online hours occur.
>The old billing process allotted 40 hrs of connect time during peak
>time, which was defined as 6am to 9pm weekdays IIRC. Off peak was
>unmetered. I suspect that if your usage is off-peak, then you have
>little to worry about.
You're right...I don't use the peak hours very much at all! (newbie
feels better)
I also am beginning to realize that as I learn more I may not have to
be on-line so much. A huge amount of my time is spent searching for
resources on the Web on how to do things. Learning to read and answer
mail and work on my page off-line has been on the "to search for" list
for awhile along with a ton of other things, and hopefully when I do
learn these things my usage will go down.
Also when you're learning everything takes forever :) !
Thanks for posting this because I was upset at the stuff I read
yesterday...I do NOT want to be an abuser of any kind and this worried
me a lot.
Pam
Cary R Gouge
In article <twficEt...@netcom.com>,
tw...@netcom.com (Ty Fairchild) wrote:
>On Sun, 24 May 1998 05:31:55 GMT, the dummy Cary R Gouge
<Go...@ix.netcom.com>
>spewed, and I quote:
>
>:In article <357056c4...@nntp.netcruiser>,
>: gregglns...@ix.netcom.com (Gregg) wrote:
>:
>:>On Sat, 23 May 1998 22:40:01 GMT, Ty Fairchild wrote:
>:>
>:>>On Wed, 20 May 1998 05:18:00 -0700, gregglns...@ix.netcom.com
(Gregg)
>:>>wrote, and I quote:
>:>
>:>>:My own thought is that, because of such widespread abuse, the days of
>:>>:the "unlimited" Internet account are nearing an end.
>:>>
>:>>Agreed. It appears there are those who have grave difficulty
>:understanding
>:>>the difference between "unlimited access" and "~/usage."
>:>
>:>Bingo.
>:>
>:>>Abuse by resource hogs, including that conducted under color of moral
>:>>self-justification, is still abuse. The consequences are all too
>:predictable.
>:>
>:>These are the very people who are making the concept of "unlimited"
>:>unworkable. They'll screw it up at one ISP, then move on to another,
>:>complaining all the while at the unfairness of it all.
>:>
>:>Sadly, it was predictable; they're the last ones to take a shit and
>:>the first to wipe their ass. :-(
>:>
>:>--
>:>.... Gregg
>:>
>:
>: But there are those who don't understand the law of contracts
>:and advertisement. If you use the word unlimited, then provide
>:it. If you don't want to offer that unlimited service, then say so,
>:ISP's can not have it both ways either.
>:
>
>Your blatant stupidity is amazing. But thank you for proving my point. In
>your ignorance you steadfastly refuse to be swayed by any reality,
preferring
>instead to cling onto an out-of-context definition of a single word as
>self-justification for your continued abuse of service and fuck-everyone
else
>attitude.
>
>Assuming for the moment you can read beyond the third-grade level, see the
>following excerpts from the Terms of Service to which _you_ agreed when you
>opened you account. Note the first paragraph indicates that it represents
the
>"complete" agreement and "supersedes" all other written and oral
agreements.
>Try real hard to understand the ramifications of that statement. Note
also,
>_nowhere_ in this contract does the phrase "unlimited" or "unlimited usage"
>appear.
>
>
>---------- Begin abridged copy of Netcom T&C -----------------
>
>
>NETCOM On-Line Communication Services, Inc.
>Terms and Conditions for Dial-Up Services
>
>PLEASE READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE OPENING OR
CONTINUING
>A DIALUP ACCOUNT WITH NETCOM. PLEASE ALSO FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF WITH
NETCOM'S
>ACCEPTABLE USE GUIDELINES. These Terms and Conditions, in conjunction with
the
>Acceptable Use Guidelines, represent the complete Agreement and
understanding
>between NETCOM On-Line Communication Services, Inc. ("NETCOM") and you, the
>NETCOM accountholder, and supersede any other written or oral agreement
>pertaining to your NETCOM services, other than applicable software license
>agreements. By using NETCOM services or NETCOM software, or both, you agree
to
>be bound by and to comply with this Agreement, just as if you had signed
it.
>Violation of any provision of this Agreement is grounds for immediate
>termination of your NETCOM account.
>
>[. . .]
>
>By using NETCOM services or NETCOM software, or both, you agree to be bound
by
>and to comply with this Agreement, just as if you had signed it. Violation
of
>any provision of this Agreement is grounds for immediate termination of
your
>NETCOM account.
>
>[. . .]
>
>IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO BE BOUND BY BOTH PARTS OF THIS AGREEMENT, YOU SHOULD
>IMMEDIATELY END YOUR USE OF NETCOM SERVICES AND NETCOM SOFTWARE AND NOTIFY
THE
>NETCOM CUSTOMER SERVICE DEPARTMENT SO THAT NETCOM MAY INITIATE A CLOSURE OF
>YOUR ACCOUNT.
>
>[. . .]
>
>Upon notice published on-line via NETCOM services, NETCOM may modify the
Terms
>and Conditions or the Acceptable Use Guidelines, amplify them, and/or
modify
>the prices of its services, as well as discontinue or change the services
>offered. Your continued use of NETCOM's services following such
notification
>will be deemed acceptance of the modification.
>
>[. . .]
>
>
>1.0 Provision of Services
>
>[. . .]
> 1.02
> NETCOM will provide services on its computing systems to you in
>exchange for recurring payment of subscription fees and full compliance
with
>this Agreement.
>
>[. . .]
>
> 1.04
> NETCOM reserves the right to discontinue any and all services to
>you at any time, without prior notice or liability, for any conduct which
>NETCOM, in its sole discretion, believes violates these Terms and
Conditions
>or NETCOM's Acceptable Use Guidelines, or is otherwise harmful to NETCOM's
>interests or the interests of other accountholders.
>
>[. . .]
>
>
> IN NO EVENT SHALL NETCOM BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
>PUNITIVE OR OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION,
LOST
>PROFITS) ARISING OUT OF OR IN RELATION TO THIS AGREEMENT OR THE
>ACCOUNTHOLDER'S USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE NETCOM'S SERVICES. NETCOM'S
ENTIRE
>LIABILITY AND YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY SHALL BE AT NETCOM'S OPTION, EITHER
RETURN
>OF THE SERVICE FEES PAID FOR THE CURRENT MONTH OF SERVICE AND ANY SET-UP
FEES
>PAID, OR REPLACEMENT OF CONNECTION SERVICES OR PRODUCTS.
>
>[. . .]
>
>
>-------------- End abridged copy ---------------------------
>
>
>Cary R. Gouge, you are a fucking abuser _and_ an asshole.
>
>
>
>--
> All Rights Reserved To Post Flame mail
> Ty
> "Pain validates life." Tudor Williams (1941 - )
Cary R Gouge
>On Sun, 24 May 1998 18:50:04 GMT, clueless Cary R Gouge
<Go...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote, and I quote:
>
>[dummy can't even snip a sig]
>
>:
>: No where does it say limited...when I signed up it said unlimited.
>
>What "it" said what was "unlimited." Post a copy of what "it" said.
>
>In any case the Terms & Conditions have _always_ included the following
which
>I _again_ post for your slug-thick head:
>
>"Upon notice published on-line via NETCOM services, NETCOM may modify the
>Terms and Conditions or the Acceptable Use Guidelines, amplify them, and/or
>modify the prices of its services, as well as discontinue or change the
>services offered. Your continued use of NETCOM's services following such
>notification will be deemed acceptance of the modification."
>
>This means that since an asshole like you is continuing to use your Netcom
>account you have willingly agreed to be bound by all of Netcom's Terms &
>Conditions as presently described.
>
>Furthermore contractboy, to repeat another section of the Terms &
Conditions I
>previously posted, and which you were unable to read, and which you were
less
>able to comprehend:
>
>"These Terms and Conditions, in conjunction with the Acceptable Use
>Guidelines, represent the complete Agreement and understanding between
NETCOM
>On-Line Communication Services, Inc. ("NETCOM") and you, the NETCOM
>accountholder, and supersede any other written or oral agreement
>pertaining to your NETCOM services,. . ."
>
>This means that no matter what you were told by a sales droid or any other
>person employed by Netcom, no matter what the literature contained which
you
>may have read prior to signing up, the T&C takes precedence and you agreed
to
>that condition. Sheesh.
>
>
>Must be assholes like you just like to see your peevish whinging in print.
>
>
>
>--
> All Rights Reserved To Post Flame mail
> Ty
> "Pain validates life." Tudor Williams (1941 - )
Whining is spelled w-h-i-n-i-n-g, not whinging asshole. If it weren't for
peevish whining, this would probable be a communist country by now! But
that is why my grandfather was killed defending this country and I was
disabled defending this country so that I can whine about whatever I damn
well please. Especially if it has merit!!
Asshole I have changed ISPs. They want refund my money for this month so
why not get my "usage" this month...I paid for it asshole. If it were up to
you, we would open our wallet and give em the money expecting nothing in
return. Wasn't that why the government enthusiastically prosecuted persons
associated with organized crime and why stealing is both a sin and a crime
here in America?
I understand the terms and conditions, but why not send out some "NOTICE"
that you are going to change instead of implementing it "overnight". Again
because people would have left, like I am doing, but by not telling anyone
they collect your dues on the 4th of the month and later that month they
spring it on you, when it is to late. Because their terms and conditions
say so does not make it "law" or a binding contract that is why if you keep
reading they insert this language:
If any aspect of the Agreement is held to be unenforceable, such aspect will be
performed only to the extent necessary and in such a manner to preserve to the
greatest extent possible to effect the original intent of the parties. The remainder
of this Agreement will remain in full force and effect.
I think their terms and conditions should say: Our promise to our customer is that we will not take on
more customers than we can reasonable service. We are commited to providing adequate service to
our customers. If they want to be FAIR, limit customer counts so that everyone can access the
service when they want, for as long as they want without restriction and don't pull a fast one by
"prioritizing" your customers and punishing the ones who really are using the services they paid for. It
is all find and dandy to collect the money, but when it comes time for them to delivery it is a different
story. I don't get on the internet to be a line hog. I am currently taking an arranged college class via
the internet, plus I have web pages, I use the internet for educational resources, business, information,
fact gathering and aggravating you asshole Gary!
Reverend Tweek
If asshole you changed ISPs, why are you still posting from Netcom?
>They want refund my money for this month so
>why not get my "usage" this month...I paid for it asshole.
If they want refund your money, why don't you take your refund and not
try to have your cake and eat it too?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Had your share of stoopid(tm) people? | |
| View the "Contra Costa Whines" at | [This space for lease] |
| http://www.io.com/~tweek/cocowhine/ | |
Rick Snover
In article <35734aa8...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, pat...@ix.netcom.com (barbara pattist) wrote:
>On Sun, 24 May 1998 12:45:28 GMT, dsp...@elmlawnfarms.org (Don
>Specht) wrote:
>>
>> Many of us stay online 80 to 120
>>hours a month, but it's usually continous activity and often a large
>>portion of these hours are during off-peak times.
>>
> Why would continuous activity be better than on-again- off-again
>usage for the same length of time, or isn't that what you meant?
It's more OK to stay connected if you're actively using the resource.
Holding onto a connection while you're off doing something else, tying
up a modem that someone else could be using, is less OK. If everybody
plays nice, everybody has a better time.
>barbara.. who just checked and finds over 200 hours for this
>month...ouch.
That's pushing 10 days. Impressive.
--
Rick Snover, San Diego, CA (Remove "SPAMLESS." to reply by e-mail.)
HomePage: http://www.netcom.com/~rsnover
Usenet Ref Links: http://www.netcom.com/~rsnover/usenet_guide.html
ix Usenet SPAM Stats: http://www.netcom.com/~rsnover/spam_stats.html
Rick Snover
In article <6kas5q$i...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, gregglns...@ix.netcom.com (Gregg) wrote:
>On Sun, 24 May 1998 21:31:34 GMT, Pamela Gross wrote:
[snip]
>>But I would appreciate some notice, somewhere, of the change.
>
>what means?
[snip]
How 'bout netcom.netcruiser.announce? That's what it's (supposed
to be) there for.
barbara pattist
On Sun, 24 May 1998 21:30:45 -0700, gregglns...@ix.netcom.com
(Gregg) wrote:
>On Sun, 24 May 1998 16:34:49 GMT, barbara pattist wrote:
>
> //snipped//
>
>>barbara.. who just checked and finds over 200 hours for this
>>month...ouch.
>
>Ouch indeed, Barbara. Do the math and you'll find that you're
>spending over 35% of your life, this month, online! Subtract the
>time spent sleeping, and the percentage of your waking hours is a
>good deal higher...
>
>Kinda makes you stop and think, doesn't it? :)
>
>--
>... Gregg
Actually it's all those times you leave the computer for just a
minute..the phone rings, a cat wants out, the visiting grandkids are
fighting, the doorbell rings, a cat wants in, the kids are hungry. No
use disconnecting cause you're going to be right back..sure..right!
barbara
Cary R Gouge
>On Mon, 25 May 1998 00:28:18 GMT, Cary R Gouge <Go...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
>while jerking off in a full Tabasco bottle, and I quote:
>
>
>[Cary The Clueless still hasn't learned to snip sigs]
>
>
>:Whining is spelled w-h-i-n-i-n-g, not whinging asshole.
>
>Yes you ARE a W-H-I-N-G-I-N-G asshole. Can't you read? Have you ever
>traveled farther than fucking grade school in this world? Ignorant
>dipshit:
>
>-------------
>"whinge (hwinj, winj), v.i., whinged, whing·ing. Australian Slang.
>to complain; whine.
>[bef. 1150; dial. (Scots, N England), earlier Scots quhynge, OE hwinsian
>(not recorded in ME); c. OHG winsŽn (G winseln); deriv. of Gmc base of
>WHINE]
>
>—whingÆer, n. "
>
>-------------
>
>THAT'S what you are -- not just a WHINGER but a DUMB fucking WHINGER!
>
>
>Assholes like you Cary are very fond of spelling lames, and grammar lames,
>so let's take a look at YOUR ignorant spew:
>
>: If it weren't for
>:peevish whining, this would probable be a communist country by now! But
> ^^^^^^^^
>"Probable"? Typical ignorant shit from Cary The Clueless asshole. Do you
>see Communists under your bed these days. <yawn>
>
>:that is why my grandfather was killed defending this country and I was
>:disabled defending this country so that I can whine about whatever I damn
>:well please. Especially if it has merit!!
>
>Boring. So your grandfather was killed and you were disabled for "peevish
>whining"? I'm not surprised. He'd roll over in his grave reading your
>stupidity. BTW, how many times have you used that line. And what about
>your father, did he flee to Canada in 1968? It doesn't have a fucking
>thing to do with anything discussed here. WHINGING dipshit.
>
>:
>:Asshole I have changed ISPs. They want refund my money for this month so
> ^^^^
>"want"? "They want. . ." Dumb WHINGING asshole.
>
>:why not get my "usage" this month...I paid for it asshole.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>You paid for an asshole when you are already one. That's dumb.
>
>: If it were up
to
>:you, we would open our wallet and give em the money expecting nothing in
> ^^^^^
>New concept Cary dipshit, it's called agreement. Then again, you do have
>severe problems with agreements don't you.
>
>
>:return. Wasn't that why the government enthusiastically prosecuted
persons
>:associated with organized crime
>
>Yeah, right. "The government" in all its enthusiasm has eradicated
>organized crime. <cough> <hack>
>
>
>: and why stealing is both a sin and a
crime
>:here in America?
>
>So stealing is "both a sin and a crime" because "the government"
>prosecutes persons associated with organized crime. What the fuck could
>you have been thinking when you typed that. You are a fucking WHINGING
>moron.
>
>
>:I understand the terms and conditions,
>
>Bzzzzt. Your posts prove you DO NOT understand anything except your own
>WHINGING.
>
>: but why not send out some
"NOTICE"
>:that you are going to change instead of implementing it "overnight".
> ^^^
>
>Hello. Earth calling dumb bastard Cary... _I_ didn't change anything.
>
>: Again
>:because people would have left, like I am doing, but by not telling anyone
>:they collect your dues on the 4th of the month and later that month they
>:spring it on you, when it is to late.
>
>This Cary crap defies reality. You are the worst fucking writer, the most
>egregious mangler of the language I have ever read within usenet. Re-read
>what you've written. Bet it makes sense only to the screaming voices in
>your pointy widdle head.
>
>: Because their terms and
conditions
>:say so does not make it "law" or a binding contract that is why if you
keep
>:reading they insert this language:
>:
>: If any aspect of the Agreement is held to be unenforceable, such
aspect will be
>: performed only to the extent necessary and in such a manner to
preserve to the
>: greatest extent possible to effect the original intent of the
parties. The remainder
>: of this Agreement will remain in full force and effect.
>:
>:I think their terms and conditions should say:
>
>[You want Netcom to tickle your wee wee to make you feel good]
>
>
>:It is all find and dandy to collect the money,
> ^^^^
>
>"find"? Fucking WHINGING asshole.
>
>:but when it comes time for them to delivery it is a different story.
> ^^^^^^^^
>
>"delivery"? Fucking WHINGING asshole.
>
>
>:I don't get on the internet to be a line hog. I am currently
>:taking an arranged college class via the internet,
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Hahahahahahahahaha...it won't help. You are too much of a stupid fuck to
>do anything more than take up valuable space someone else with a brain
>could use.
>
>
>:plus I have web pages, I use the internet for educational resources,
>:business, information, fact gathering and aggravating you asshole Gary!
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Ahhhhhh. The denouement. You really should check to see if both your
>eyes are on the same side of your head. You don't even know to whom you
>follow. Yes Cary R. Gouge, you are indeed a fuck, an asshole, a dipshit,
>and most of all a WHINGING, ignorant swine.
I only have one eye since the accident. But I write well enough to get you
to waste your time responding to my comments. I think now I am going to
sign several people up to Netcom in your local POP area and have them log on
as much a possible maybe it will keep a writing God like you from being able
to articulate your lefist philosophy to the others who share your fucked-up
philosophy. Guess nearly everyone in these news groups are followers of
yours. To bad I can not convince you Gary, but three attorneys, dateline
nbc, and two of my local news networks are interested in telling this story.
I will be sure to have them contact you Gary in case the ISPs refuse to
comment as I am quite sure you can articulate your philosophies in front of
the camera as well as you can behind the security of the computer, where you
have time to think about what you want to say (sure it takes you hours to
draft one of your superior sentences), plus you can get out the thesaurus
and use words that only pompous assholes like you use so that you can
pretend to be something you are not -- intelligent and articulate. For me I
type a message like this in just a minute or so and sure it shows, but I can
do likewise or usually better in real life how about you Gary?
I notice you are preaching to all the people who said they checked and
realized that they have been online for 200 hours this month. Then being
the mathematician you are (remember, Gary is also an incredible writer --
Gary has no limits -- keep your eyes open for him tonight during the Chicago
and Indiana basketball game, I hear if Miller can't play then our newsgroup
leader Gary will be riding in on his white horse ready to destroy Jordan on
the court ---- Gary, just don't forget to log-off before you leave the
house...I would hate to see you tie up the POP up while you are dunking on
Jordan) you tell folks how they have no lives when you apply your
mathematical formula (hours a sleep this month minus hours logged on this
month minus numbr of hours in the month = no life!) Who are you preaching
to Gary? Yourself? Are you a recovering Internet addict? You on the 12
step program? Let me remind you what step twelve is -- "KISS MY ASS" Now
that is the denouement!!
Cary R Gouge
In article <6kceuv$g...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
When I refer to Gary, it should say Ty. New to this newsgroup stuff. What
kind of name is Ty? Your parents scared you could not learn to spell a
three letter first name like "ASS" and a four letter middle name like
"HOLE"? Where does a pompous ass like you work? China?
Cary R Gouge
In article <6kcm9m$o...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
gregglns...@ix.netcom.com (Gregg) wrote:
>On Mon, 25 May 1998 19:21:38 GMT, Cary R Gouge wrote:
>
> //snipped//
>
>>When I refer to Gary, it should say Ty. New to this newsgroup stuff.
>
>What does that have to do with anything? You were responding to Ty,
>yet you used the name "Gary" eight times. Ty != Gary. Surely you
>could put your remaining eye to better use.
>
>>What kind of name is Ty? Your parents scared you could not learn to spell
>>a three letter first name like "ASS" and a four letter middle name like
>>"HOLE"?
>
>Name flames are usually the last resort of the incompetent, and this
>flame is even sillier than most. Kids: Don't try this at home!
>
>>Where does a pompous ass like you work? China?
>
>Cary, this is bullshit. You initiated this discussion by complaining
>about Netcom's choice of policy at the top of your virtual lungs. The
>reasoning behind it was explained to you. You didn't like it. Fine.
>This is the way it is, thereby leaving you with two choices: Stay here
>and live with it, or vote with your wallet by taking your business to
>another ISP whose policies are more in keeping with your view of
>what's right and fair. It really isn't a very complicated issue.
>
>--
>.... Gregg
>
Go back and read where from the beginning Gregg, you and your supporters
are the suckers who started calling me names so your comment about "name
flames are usually the last resort of the incompetent, and this
flame is even sillier than most" is pointing the finger at you. I thought I
would get down on your level. I said I thought Netcom was being deceptive
and you fucks responded that I was a fucking idiot, a stupid fuck, ect.
Cary R Gouge
>On Mon, 25 May 1998 19:04:40 GMT, Cary R Gouge <Go...@ix.netcom.com>
>wrote, and I quote:
>
>[just like the mythical cyclops - CRG childish inferiority]
>
>
>You did manage one semi-intelligent point: It IS a waste of time
>responding to you. However it was necessary to retest The Remote. You
>proved once again that the "Shit Magnet" setting DOES attract all manner
>of useless garbage -- YOU.
and you too!
Cary R Gouge
In article <twficEt...@netcom.com>,
tw...@netcom.com wrote:
>On Mon, 25 May 1998 19:21:38 GMT, the wretched Cary R Gouge
><dumb...@ix.netcom.com> whinged, and I quote:
>
>
>[poor Cary wallows again in a pathetic display of self-pity]
>[unedited, wrong references, wrong attributes - newbie asshole]
>
>
>When the hell will you learn to edit. Fucking mongrel bastard Cary.
>
>
>:When I refer to Gary, it should say Ty.
> ^^
>
>"It"? This "it" runs your sorry life. You are a lame motherfucker.
>
>: New to this newsgroup stuff.
>
>Really? No one would have guessed that bit of trivia. NOT.
>
>: What
>:kind of name is Ty? Your parents scared you could not learn to spell a
>:three letter first name like "ASS" and a four letter middle name like
>:"HOLE"?
>
>My parents scared? Hardly. They're dead. They died defending the Great
>Wall against infidels of your ilk. Hey! Maybe it was YOUR grandfather who
>killed them with his peevish whinging before he met his death under a
>speeding Sampan.
>
>: Where does a pompous ass like you work?
>
>Why? You want to blow me? I see my manifest magnificence has overcome
>your child-like mentality. You worship each of my articles and wish to
>emulate my superiority. Yes Cary, you may bow down and grovel at my feet.
>
>
>Since you are incapable of understanding normal human language, since you
>are unwilling to engage in rational intercourse on your original whinge,
>and since you enjoy spelling lames, I have something for you:
>
>
> _ _
> |_| |_|
> | | /^^^\ | |
> _| |_ (| "o" |) _| |_
> _| | | | _ (_---_) _ | | | |_
> | | | | |' | _| |_ | `| | | | |
> | | / \ | |
> \ Fuck / / /(. .)\ \ \ You /
> \ / / / | . | \ \ \ /
> \ \/ / ||Y|| \ \/ /
> \__/ || || \__/
> () ()
> || ||
> ooO Ooo
>
>
>
>
>Since you think I am someone called "Gary," stick THIS up your feeble ass.
>
>
>
>
> x
> x x
> x x x
> x x
> x x
> x x x
> x x x x
> x x x x x x x
> x x x . x x x
> x x x x x x
> x x x . x x x
> x . x
> x . . . x
> x . . x
> x .. . x
> x . . x
> x . x
> x . . . x
> x ____*_____ x
> xxxx/ \ \xxxx
> xxxx| *--- |xxxx
> xxxx\__________/xxxx
> x x
> xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> x x
> x xx x
> x xx x
> x x
> x xx x
> x xx x
> x x
> x x
>
>
>
>HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
>
nice work. Hope you spent hours on it! I think now that it is racism.
MLG
In article <357056c4...@nntp.netcruiser>,
Gregg <gregglns...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 23 May 1998 22:40:01 GMT, Ty Fairchild wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 20 May 1998 05:18:00 -0700, gregglns...@ix.netcom.com (Gregg)
>>wrote, and I quote:
>
>>:My own thought is that, because of such widespread abuse, the days of
>>:the "unlimited" Internet account are nearing an end.
>>
>>Agreed. It appears there are those who have grave difficulty understanding
>>the difference between "unlimited access" and "~/usage."
>
>Bingo.
>
>>Abuse by resource hogs, including that conducted under color of moral
>>self-justification, is still abuse. The consequences are all too predictable.
>
>These are the very people who are making the concept of "unlimited"
>unworkable. They'll screw it up at one ISP, then move on to another,
>complaining all the while at the unfairness of it all.
>
>Sadly, it was predictable; they're the last ones to take a shit and
>the first to wipe their ass. :-(
this should read: they are the first on the throne but the last to ever
flush.
--
-i (is...@netcom.com)
OBDisclaimer #1: Any post or email that you feel to be controversial that is
also unsigned via PGP 2.6.i may be a forgery. Public key
(ascii) available from MIT PGP meta-keyserver or by email
to 'is...@netcom.com' with 'subject: PGP'.
OBDisclaimer #2: Email categorization in effect for my account. Instruction
on categorization available at same address with 'subject: x'
OBDisclaimer #3: all flames will be directed to /dev/null.
(*) <- in fond memory of TOADIE #2, #1654 (retired)
MLG
In article <356991c...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Pamela Gross <be...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 May 1998 12:50:53 GMT, dsp...@elmlawnfarms.org (Don
>Specht) wrote:
>
>
>>Make sure you develop web procedures for yourself that cause you to do
>>most of the work off-line. Lurk/post in n.n.www for tips and hints.
>>It's a good group, imho.
>>
>
>I also am beginning to realize that as I learn more I may not have to
>be on-line so much. A huge amount of my time is spent searching for
>resources on the Web on how to do things. Learning to read and answer
>mail and work on my page off-line has been on the "to search for" list
>for awhile along with a ton of other things, and hopefully when I do
>learn these things my usage will go down.
>
its always a good idea to plan your site before you ever start writing html.
when you understand what needs to be there and how a user will navigate, you
have the hard part of web design done. also, emphasize text over graphics.
>Also when you're learning everything takes forever :) !
>
ah...but it takes much much longer if you never bothered to learn :)
>Thanks for posting this because I was upset at the stuff I read
>yesterday...I do NOT want to be an abuser of any kind and this worried
>me a lot.
let us know when its ready :)
Ben
Cary R Gouge wrote in message <6k7h3k$e...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>...
>In article <6juhlr$e...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
> gregglns...@ix.netcom.com (Gregg) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 19 May 1998 16:13:48 -0600, RB wrote:
>>
>>>UNfair!
>>
>>INcorrect!
>>
>>>Today I received this message from Netcom. Apparently, the
>>>"unlimited" use that I paid for is NOT unlimited.
>>
>>Usage inplies an active communication, sending data both ways. Since
>>the implementation of "unlimited" service in 1996, too many people
>>seem to feel some odd sort of compulsion to be connected at all times.
>>I've known of people who ran up as much as 400 hours in a given
>>month... and there are only 30x24=720 hours *in* a month!
>>
>>There are all too many people who treat a $20/month account as if it
>>was a dedicated connection to the net, set their email clients to
>>check for mail every 10-15 minutes, then go off about their business,
>>leaving the computer unattended. Others really do sit at the
>>computer, online, for a great part of the day; those who spend more
>>than 100-150 hours online each month might be well advised to give
>>serious consideration to acquiring a life.
>>
>>Back in March of '97, Dave Garrison of Netcom informed his customers
>>that "We've found that less than three percent of NETCOM customers
>>account for thirty percent of our resource use." Other ISPs have
>>discovered that their figures are even worse. No ISP can afford to
>>sit back and do nothing to stop resource hogs, as each login ties up a
>>phone line, a modem, and system resources that must be shared between
>>a certain number of users.
>>
>>My own thought is that, because of such widespread abuse, the days of
>>the "unlimited" Internet account are nearing an end. There are early
>>signs of this: Earlier this year, ibm.net changed from $19.95 for
>>"unlimited" usage to $19.95 for 100 hours/month, with a fee of
>>$1.95/hour for additional use. AT&T's Internet service, att.net,
>>recently went to a plan that charges $19.95 for 150 hours/month, with
>>additional time billed at the rate of 99 cents/hour. It's interesting
>>to note that it was AT&T who began the "unlimited" concept two years
>>ago.
>>
>>>Netcom makes AOL look good!
>>
>>Then your solution is obvious, isn't it?
>>
>>Of course, in its own attempt to address the problem, AOL has just
>>upped its fees by a couple of bucks a month. If that doesn't have the
>>desired effect, they'll have no choice but to abandon the "unlimited"
>>concept and go to an x dollars for so many hours type of access.
>>Further, I'm told that every 15 minutes a box pops up that says that
>>you'll be disconnected unless you indicate that you want to stay on
>>line.
>>
>>A business needs eventually to make a profit, RB, and all ISPs are
>>trying to figure out their best course of action to take to limit
>>those resource hogs who are spoiling things for the rest of us.
>>
>>--
>>.... Gregg
>>
>
> Unlimited means no restrictions, no limits, no boundaries, no conditions.
>I can not even log on anymore because of this bs policy. AOL got sued for
>this same crap.
>I feel it is a breach of contract and false advertisement to tell potential
>users you offer unlimited access but when they join say unlimited is not
>really unlimited, but rather less than 100 hours per month. I think
someone
>should see about bringing a class action lawsuit against NETCOM. AOL had
to
>pay! But what I am most upset about is that I did not receive any prior
>notice, just error messages and disconnections once the policy was
>implemented, then it is to late to limit your usage to keep from being
>effected by this "FAIR" policy. NETCOM did not tell anyone because they
new
>most high usage users would go walking. I hope you do, I have. Maybe it
>will send a message. Moreover, when I do log on, I have noticed my
>connection speed is lower than normal -- can't give the high usage person a
>good connection. Bottom line is, I paid for unlimited access, and if I
want
>to log-on for 720 hours a month GREG. I should be allowed to. If NETCOM
>doesn't want that...then cahnge the advertisement....say $19.95 for 70
>hours, or whatever they consider low usage.
>
>To me, it is Corporate American at it again. Screw the little guy. So
>Greg, you go ahead and take it, but they are still to many companies out
>there that will still, at least for now, give you what you pay for
>"UNLIMITED" access.
There is no use in trying to explain the reasons for these ISP policies,
there are some that just dont (wont) understand, these ME FIRST Attitudes
are what's ruining it for all of us.
Ben