From: nilknocgeo@earthlink.net
"Robert Heller" wrote in message
news:vfSdnfuefOu1Li_OnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> At Tue, 1 Jul 2014 04:59:11 -0700 (PDT) rcp27g@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tuesday, 1 July 2014 06:58:04 UTC+2, spsffan wrote:
>> > On 6/30/2014 2:18 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>
>> > > But I will note there are plenty of people out there who don't have a
>> > > cell hone at all, and plenty more who do have one but use it very
>> > > sparingly on a cheap pay-as-you-go plan.
>> >=20
>> > That would be me. I despise texting on phones. It is lazy and easy
>> > to=20
>> > fraud or spoof with someone's stolen or borrowed phone. If I hear a=20
>> > voice I know, I know who is there. Text could be anyone from a bot
>> > to=20
>> > Charles Manson. Mostly, it's just rude.
>>
>> I find it astounding to accuse the text message of being rude compared
>> with=
>> a voice call. The telephone and the behaviour that society expects of
>> it,=
>> is exceedingly rude. If I was in the middle of having a conversation
>> with=
>> someone and another person walked passed, interupted my conversation and
>> d=
>> emanded I speak with them regardless of who the first person was or how
>> imp=
>> ortant that other conversation was, that would be regarded as ubelievably
>> r=
>> ude. And yet that is precisely what people expect to happen when the
>> phone=
>> rings. If I am in the middle of cooking dinner or reading a book,
>> someone=
>> coming over to me and insisting that I stop what I am doing and speak
>> with=
>> them would be the height of impoliteness. Yet society expects we do
>> that =
>> with the telephone.
>>
>> > If you want my attention, talk to me.
>>
>> When I send text messages it is because I don't want the other person's
>> *at=
>> tention*. What I want to do is make some information available to them,
>> or=
>> to ask a non-urgent question of them in a way that gives them the
>> freedom =
>> to answer at a moment that is convenient for them, rather than for me.
>> Dem=
>> anding a person's attention is disruptive to them, moreso if you have no
>> id=
>> ea what they are doing when you make that demand. The text message
>> allows =
>> information to travel in a much less disruptive manner. A text message
>> can=
>> be composed, sent, received, read and replied to all silently.
>>
>> > Oh, sure, having access to email and the internet on a device in my=20
>> > pocket would come in handy now and then. But for the $90 a month or
>> > so=20
>> > that it seems to cost for anything like that, I'll pass unless I have
>> > a=
>> =20
>> > regular need.
>> >=20
>> > Also, from back when I did have a regular cell plan, is that $90
>> > they=20
>> > quote what I pay or what they charge before the 20-30% of assorted
>> > fees=
>> =20
>> > and taxes? I hate buying anything without knowing the price in
>> > advance.=
>> =20
>> > Medical care and utilities are bad enough. Heck, even my land line=20
>> > phone, if I make no calls whatsoever, has about 20% added fees and
>> > taxes=
>> =20
>> > to the quoted rate.
>> >=20
>> > My prepaid phone will NEVER send me a bill I can't afford or don't
>> > want=
>> =20
>> > to pay.
>>
>> You are living in the past if you think that is the situation (or else
>> you =
>> live in a country with a shockingly backwards and exploitative phone
>> system=
>> ). Where I live, phone companies offer unlimited data for less than the
>> eq=
>> uivalent of $50/month, and the data rates on PAYG are quite cheap.
>
> Yes, it is called the United States Of America, which is in fact "a
> country
> with a shockingly backwards and exploitative phone system". Its whole
> Telecom
> system is in fact "shockingly backwards and exploitative". I live in
> Western
> Mass. There is NO broadband Internet. The 'shockingly backwards' phone
> system
> (analog copper based, kept barely functional though *minimal* maintenance
> efforts by Verizon), barely supports 33.6K modem (I have a 56K V90 modem,
> but
> I have to throttle it back to about 33K because it cannot maintain a
> reliable
> connection at higher speeds). And yes, Verizon and AT&T do charge upwards
> of
> $90/month for cell phones where they work -- cell coverage in Western Mass
> is
> often spotty, mostly due to the rural, hilly, and forested terrain.
>
>>
>> Robin
>>
>
> --
> Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 / heller@deepsoft.com
> Deepwoods Software -- http://www.deepsoft.com/
> () ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
> /\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments
>
>
>
The rural coopertives do better. SkyBest in the Boone, NC area, has put in
FIOS at my cabin, a place with such a view that only one house is visible,
and that is in the distance. (No cable available). There is such a backlong
of people rushing to sign up it takes 6 weeks to get an appointment. Also,
standard DSL is 6 mips at house...which is two-tenths of a mile from the
road and we have underground connections to hide the wires. Durham, NC is
worse by fare. 2.9 mps maximum DSL at my house due to "remote location,"
which is just behind RTP. It is a dead spot for highly-advertised
over-the-air services such as that company which advetises set top boxes for
tv reception. I cannot use DirecTV due to trees on properties near me, even
if I cut down my trees. So, Time-Warner is it. I do not use Time-Warner.
We have 4 antennas for TV, but with the new digital transmission system,
reception comes and goes if the wind blows or it rains. One TV gets the
educational
TV station fine during the day, but at night it fades out. No idea why, and
this is with a 6 bow tie array. Another TV does not get channel 11, with a
roof-mounted antenna too. Adjusting the antenna does no good. So, forget
the issues with the Internet. Our TV system is not used elsewhere and it is
seriously third-world.
--- SoupGate/W32 v1.03
* Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)
|
