John Lewis wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:43:50 -0400, Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:37:34 -0400, "Mr.E Solved!"
>> <Iamsingle@askme.out> wrote:
>>
>>> Folk wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:45:34 GMT, john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Verizon provides me a near fault-free service with no bandwidth caps
>>>>> or erratic upload bandwidth, so I have no real inclination to change
>>>>> ISP providers [...] So, I say farewell to a couple of my favorite alt. groups..
>>>> I never understood people who based their ISP decisions on the quality
>>>> of their Usenet service. Most folks long ago wised up and went with a
>>>> third-party email service so that changing ISP's or crappy ISP related
>>>> mail service wasn't a big issue, so why don't they do the same with
>>>> Usenet? If all you're interested in is text based groups, then there
>>>> are scores of independent Usenet providers who can hook you up for
>>>> next to nothing. Even premium Usenet provider who offer all the
>>>> groups and no download limits (or at least reasonable download limits)
>>>> can be had for around $10/month.
>>>
>>> By your logic ISPs should not even offer email, nor should anyone pick
>>> an ISP based on their email service.. since you can get email at any
>>> third party provider.
>>>
>>> Regardless of the breach of contract by cutting out an enumerated
>>> service, regardless of the same old witch-hunt war-cry of child-sex
>>> vagaries, this is an attack on the free exchange of information.
>>>
>>> Not everyone has the same priorities as you Folk, nor do they roll over
>>> as easily when they tell you you're in for a rogering.
>>>
>>> Tell us Folk, what services exactly should ISPs provide for the end user?
>> Looks like a couple of people already provided the answer that you
>> already knew (based on my post ) that I would provide.
>>
>> My main point though is that using third-party providers for email and
>> Usenet insulates you from the eventual ISP change. Some people put up
>> with crappy ISP service because "it's too much of a hassle to change
>> my email address". To me, that's not a valid reason.
>>
>
> A very valid reason actually, for those of us who have long-term
> memorable email addresses and excellent spam filters.
>
>
>> It just seems odd to me that the OP would bid farewell to a newsgroup
>> just because his ISP decided to do something stupid.
>
> Traffic on the particular alt. (computer/console-hardware) groups to
> which I subscribe has shrunk significantly over the past year or two,
> so the loss to me is not great and there are other forums available in
> which I actively participate. The Verizon decision to eliminate ALL
> alt. groups from their newservers instead of selectively filtering
> well-known culprit-groups - a technically trivial task - bears the
> hall-marks of a truly arrogant company that does not put their
> customers first.
>
> John Lewis
Correct, as the hidden motive as always is profit. Here are Verizon's
motivations:
1) USEnet carries a huge percentage of internet traffic, proportionally
large for the number of users. (alt.binaries.*)
2) USEnet is non-commercial by charter and any attempts to commercialize
USEnet will fail.
3) USEnet is distributed and thusly prohibitively difficult to fall
under complete corporate or covert control.
4) USEnet is not popular therefore its elimination will go mostly unnoticed.
5) USEnet can be accessed by other means, so they feel no responsibility
in maintaining access.
6) USEnet can provide cover for illegal and immoral acts
7) Part of a larger, more sinister overarching plan to commercialize and
profit off of all human activities and output, a creativity tax if you will.
8) Verizon loses money every time someone uses the internet from their
Verizon account.
Many of the technical problems are trivial and already solved, even
already implemented. Laws already exist a hundred times over, the world
over to punish actual criminals of any possible human activity
imaginable including those who use USEnet.
The only real concern is bandwidth: by failing to invest in
infrastructure Verizon and other ISPs find themselves in a similar
position as an airline that has overbooked the available number of seats
on a flight. When you get bumped off a flight you are required to be
overcompensated by law, to teach the airlines to better manage their
booking systems.
With Internet access, instead of getting you on the next flight and
vouchers or discounts for future travel Verizon simply cuts off a few
destinations for everyone since "You all really don't want to go there
anyway and if you do, fly with someone else since you are probably
smuggling something and you have too much luggage. Besides, we really
really need the planes elsewhere."
Invest in infrastructure.
|
|