Join the Wireless Phone Revolution for $10!

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 19:54:44 -0700, O x f o r d wrote:

> "IMHO IIRC" <NOSPAM@NOSPAM.NOSPAM> wrote:
>
>> >> or $204 a year, or about half my DSL bill each year.
>> >>
>> >> sweet!
>> >
>> > Wow you pay $408 a year for DSL? What speeds do you get?
>
> nothing too speedy, about 1300 kb/s down - 740 up
>
> what are you getting wise tonight?
>
> http://www.speedtest.net/
>
>> He probably has the ultimate DSL package so he an support the 250
>> people parked around his house using his "FREE" open WiFi. lol
>
> nope, i never allow more than 10.

Why not? You're the big "give the wifi away free" guy. Why just 10?

--
Rick

"Rick" <none@nomail.com> stated in post 13locpsq63d03e5@news.supernews.com
on 12/9/07 11:26 AM:

>> nope, i never allow more than 10.
>
> Why not? You're the big "give the wifi away free" guy. Why just 10?

If you split it to much the bandwidth is slowed for others. Think of it as
a sprinkler system: you can only have so many sprinklers for a given pipe
size / pressure before your sprinklers will not spray effectively. Until
you hit that number, though, you can add more without hurting others.

This assumes, of course, that your "sprinklers" have equal needs. If you
add just one with a large need it can effect all others. The idea, though,
is that it is a limited resource.

Does that help you to understand? And please, please, do not claim you were
merely feigning ignorance again.


--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.
--Albert Einstein

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 17:34:39 -0500, O x f o r d wrote:
> "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Wow, 34.00 for 2 months. Quick, Call brinks armored truck service.
>
> or $204 a year, or about half my DSL bill each year.
>
> sweet!

Call two Brinks, then.

In article <iphone-0671B7.20025208122007@mpls-nnrp-04.inet.qwest.net>,
O x f o r d <iphone@superphone.com> wrote:

> Jon <Jon@Cebridge.net> wrote:
>
> > Yea, that is way to expensive for a connection to the internet.
> >
> > I only pay $200 a year for 5M down/512k up cable connection
>
> you're probably forgetting taxes / fees, etc...
>
> so you are only paying $16.50 a month for DSL? very doubtful, but if
> so... where?

Good God, man -- why do you automatically insert DSL when he just wrote
cable?
DSL is a METHOD for getting broadband networking.
As coaxial cable service is a method for it.
Neither one is a synonym for broadband internet.

At 09 Dec 2007 11:34:51 -0700 Snit wrote:

> If you split it to much the bandwidth is slowed for others.

You forget Rick was arguing with Oxford, who has assured us all in the past
any WiFi connection can easily handle 50-100 without any drop in performance.



> Does that help you to understand? And please, please, do not claim you
were
> merely feigning ignorance again.

Arguing with Oxford is like arguing relgion- one side has to accept the
other's world view as a starting point and back out of it via the
inconsistencies found in it...

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> stated in post
2a_6j.7261$061.6615@fe117.usenetserver.com on 12/9/07 12:01 PM:

> At 09 Dec 2007 11:34:51 -0700 Snit wrote:
>
>> If you split it to much the bandwidth is slowed for others.
>
> You forget Rick was arguing with Oxford, who has assured us all in the past
> any WiFi connection can easily handle 50-100 without any drop in performance.
>
>
>
>> Does that help you to understand? And please, please, do not claim you
> were
>> merely feigning ignorance again.
>
> Arguing with Oxford is like arguing relgion- one side has to accept the
> other's world view as a starting point and back out of it via the
> inconsistencies found in it...

I am not arguing that Oxford is correct - but Rick often feigns ignorance in
his debates... it is a silly tactic.


--
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
everyone. -- Bill Cosby

Mitch wrote:
> DSL is a METHOD for getting broadband networking.
> As coaxial cable service is a method for it.
> Neither one is a synonym for broadband internet.

For the most part, consumers order "internet" without realizing the
subtle differences in what they order.

Considering that I haven't seen any DSL or WiFi offerings under 200
Kbps, I could argue that anything other than dial-up is broadband (based
on the FCC's third world definition of anything faster than 200 Kbps is
"broadband").

Unless someone orders something specific, then they get both the
delivery method and internet access at the same time.

Exceptions would include:
T1 with or without an internet point of presence. $350 vs as high
or over $800 per month.

DSL with or without an internet point of presence. Base rate and
then subtract typically $20 for dropping any connection to the
internet.

Cable from the local TV cable provider. I don't know of any that
give you "pipe access" only.

Then you get into the static IP support, garden walled DSLAM routers,
etc. arena.

Todd Allcock wrote:
> Arguing with Oxford is like arguing relgion- one side has to accept the
> other's world view as a starting point and back out of it via the
> inconsistencies found in it...

Wow...that sounds like the way my mom explained Catholicism to me over
fifty years ago.

Why are you posting this in a Nokia group?



On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 12:22:05 -0700, O x f o r d
<iphone@superphone.com> wrote:
>As the need for pointlessly expensive Cell Contracts continues to
>disappear, FON... the world's largest free wireless network has a deal
>to make your CURRENT broadband connection Secure and "Wireless" for $5
>and $5 for shipping.
>
>The faster we all join together to get rid of the old Cell Industry the
>faster everyone on the planet will move forward!
>
>Go here and choose your country!
>
>https://shop.fon.com/FonShop/shop/
>
>Join Fon here, and they will add you to the list to get the $5 router.
>
>http://www.fon.com/en/register/form
>
>The cool thing about all of this is that you can add it to your existing
>wired OR wireless network, and then it allows you to segment your DSL or
>Cable connection into one called "social", the other is "private to
>you"... you make money every time someone connects, plus gives you the
>freedom to "join" any Fon network worldwide.
>
>It's the perfect mesh matrix to get rid of those ugly cell towers and
>provide you with free world wide calls!
>
>The future is here, join the growing "massive... basically FREE" party!
>
>http://www.fon.com/en/
>
>---

Why are you posting this in a Nokia group?


On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:33:29 -0700, Snit <CSMA@gallopinginsanity.com>
wrote:
>"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> stated in post
>2a_6j.7261$061.6615@fe117.usenetserver.com on 12/9/07 12:01 PM:
>
>> At 09 Dec 2007 11:34:51 -0700 Snit wrote:
>>
>>> If you split it to much the bandwidth is slowed for others.
>>
>> You forget Rick was arguing with Oxford, who has assured us all in the past
>> any WiFi connection can easily handle 50-100 without any drop in performance.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Does that help you to understand? And please, please, do not claim you
>> were
>>> merely feigning ignorance again.
>>
>> Arguing with Oxford is like arguing relgion- one side has to accept the
>> other's world view as a starting point and back out of it via the
>> inconsistencies found in it...
>
>I am not arguing that Oxford is correct - but Rick often feigns ignorance in
>his debates... it is a silly tactic.
>
>
>--
>I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
>everyone. -- Bill Cosby
>