[conspire] suggestions for web based email

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Ruben Safir (ruben at mrbrklyn.com):

> Maybe but it is not.  It seems to be a local Chicago problem and a Local
> Milwaukee and Fort Lauderdale problem.  I might check on Seatle and
> Austin Texas and LA if you want.  I actually also know it is true in
> Hartford Ct, not that I think about it.

Interesting:  I wouldn't know about that.  But I'll point out again the
thing I said upthread:

  Discussions of relative merits of ISPs tend to devolve into noise for
  a number of reasons:  1. It's difficult to take into account locality
  dependence (what's available depends greatly on where you are), and most
  commenters don't even try.

Not meaning to drive the point into the ground, but you didn't even try.
At _minimum_, your post was misleading (and yet also vague) for readers
in the S.F. Bay Area, _which is where this LUG is_.

By the way, out of curiosity, if I find aDSL providers serving Chicago
and/or Milwaukee with rates roughly competitive to Raw Bandwidth
Communications, do I get anything?

> But in addition to that, FWIW, with all do respect, your line is slow.

Yep.  For reasons already cited.  (Some local DSL providers such as
Sonic.net have been deploying ADSL2 DSLAMs, which are miniature things,
much, much closer to served neighbourhoods, hence don't suffer the
problem mentioned.  I haven't bothered to check availability lately.
Some other folks on Conspire, like Daniel Gimpelevich, follow the news
on that more closely.)

If I had some reason to host stupendous numbers of large public files on
my Web site, the way you do, I'd put that on a VM virthost at prgmr.com.
Luckily, I don't do that, so the slowdown from being at maximum distance
from the local telco CO doesn't bother me much.


> If anything I am looking to move up and that is be to fiber optic and
> that Fios.

If so, _thank you_ for being an early adopter.  I love it when early
adopters pay through the nose for something new and shiny, because then
a couple of years later the rest of us can afford it at commodity
prices.  So, yeah, cool, slide down the steep part of the demand curve
for me.  Make basic microeconomics my friend.


> So that window for DSL is closing.  Optimum is going to be offering
> 450mbps for 150/month and then more for the statics etc.  

Yeah, you go pay for that, my good friend!  Early-adopting is super
cool.  Go you!  You lead the parade, and the rest of us will be
following somewhere a few miles back.  Don't wait for us.

> So my expereince is that your deal is very good one and not widely
> available, and it is not enough bandwidth for what I currently do.

What do I get for putting in the time and (if the claims don't hold
water)  poking holes in your factual claims?  Because otherwise, I am
not sure I care whether your claim about Chicago and Milwaukee is
correct or not.  In fact, your underlying assumption that you can claim
'DSL is not an affordable option under current rules' on a LUG mailing
list in Silicon Valley and then, when challenged on that, point to
(undocumented vague claims about) Chicago and Milwaukee is presumptuous
and pretty severely out of line.

> > Because, as stated, the sentence managed the rare
> > feat of being simultaneously vague and also misleading.
> 
> Well, this is not vague and misleading.  That sentence is not
> acceptable, and it is abussive.

_Again_ with the theatrical I'm-the-real-victim hypersensitivity.  
It really is undignified, Ruben.  If that doesn't bother you, it really
ought to.

You'll never get that back.  People tend to remember.
.