Topic 'Re: F this' in forum '' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22349270 en Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:30:04 EDT Thu, 09 Feb 2012 12:30:04 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22380905 said by DataRiker:

After all this none of you can logically justify how consumers should pay for ad heavy sites. Since you're dense and can't get over the fact I'm not fiberguy, just a user who doesn't feel like having an account here anymore, remember this:

IF you get charged for bandwidth used. You can pay for, avoid downloading, or block the data used by the ads. It's YOUR choice.

If you or other people can't figure that out, it's not MY problem. You'll just have to cry about it some more and pay for what ever bandwidth is used. It won't be much, but I guess you'll figure that out when the time comes.

I'm not worried about ads because I block them. They're annoying and get in the way of the content I want. I'm more worried about being billed for the over 100 GB of other data I download or gigs of ARP traffic than the ads I don't see.

Excuse me, I'm tired of wasting any more time or bandwidth on YOU. Good thing I'm not being billed my the byte for this...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22380905 Wed, 13 May 2009 01:27:46 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22380476
Again, all of the sites posted were first page google hits which means they are frequented often by millions of people.

And as of yet, you refuse to do your test methods properly (allowing all ads to "pop" and using a router log, expect to see those numbers triple)

Extremely disingenuous - but what would you expect from someone who posts under two user names

To sum up:

1.) you fail to realize how google hits are ordered

(your defense is they are junk sites, no argument there, welcome to 95% of the internet)

2.) you fail to measure all ad's

3.) the ad's you do measure you fail to let them cycle

4.) you collect your info through a browser, try a router
it will be many times more accurate.

5.) you fail to realize most people like to explore new sites, and do not surf on the 4 carefully selected pages you use.

6.) fiberguy = NSA_CIA, losing all credibility ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22380476 Tue, 12 May 2009 23:03:17 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22375243 said by DataRiker:

as some pm's have pointed out to me most of the links you just used are really lite on ad's for reasons i had not thought about.

1.) LA times has several areas of income, including paid listings, and exclusive content. Also the fact that one of its main purposes is to promote its paper.

2.) youtube, which is losing money, also has several paid venues.
LA Times parent company desperately needs money too, they just filed bankruptcy not too long ago and laid off a few hundred people.

So two website companies, both losing money and you don't think they'd try to make up some of it in ad revenue? What do you think ads are for?

Your reasoning for them being light on ads doesn't make much sense. If they didn't want the money, they wouldn't have the ads.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22375243 Tue, 12 May 2009 01:41:56 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22375219 said by DataRiker:

(- I will stop posting now, I just want to say a public thanks to all the private support i have had during this "discussion" and yes I know fiber and CIA are a tag team, even possible the same person !)
HAHAHAH... Riiiiiight.. Now I have some kind of need to post anon to gang up on poor little data. Seriously.. get the tin foil hat out, okay?

And, for the record.. you're always going to get support.. I got it too.. who cares... I'm not out for a popularity contest here. I post my side and my views.. period.

And, for the record.. yes.. you had an issue with ads.. you went on far too long about ads and how you'd have to pay for them on metered billing and that you shouldn't have to..

I've also said I don't like metered billing but on 3 occasions, you missed that as well as when I pointed it out to you.

I hope you've enjoyed your ranting.

Seek help.

You just demonstrated flame bating. Be proud!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22375219 Tue, 12 May 2009 01:33:05 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22375216
Oh well, it's small sampling of hole-in-the-wall sites pedaling malware that 99% of people would never go back to after visiting once by mistake. They'd be hating life after some of the junk from those sites got installed too. I've never heard of or been to any of them before and I'm sure they're top picks in your bookmarks menu too. :uhh:

I had to laugh when the sites tried to force me to download dll and exe files and pop-up with alerts telling me my computer is infected. I find it real difficult to believe some of those popup up at the top of a Google search, especially when I tried searching with common terms like you said you used.... which would make it seem like you're intentionally trying to screw with me. Good thing I'm surfing on a Mac...

Although the vast majority of individual ads and scripts on those pages are LESS than 80KB each, collectively those single sites can add up to a few megabytes of junk I'd never visit again. How many pages would I have to surf to hit a GB and pay that extra buck? At least several hundred, but probably a few thousand still. If I was on a unprotected PC that didn't have an ad blocker, it'd be reduced to a quivering pile of unusable junk before I got anywhere near that amount of surfing. Those 4-5 movie trailers in HD I watched today added up to more than that and are much more entertaining.

Easiest solution, avoid sites you've never heard of with suspicious names or use an ad blocker. Which reminds me, before you removed the screenshot, you displayed a Firefox window running NoScript. Makes a great way to block ads and it's free, but you know that don't you?. But you think that's a "joke" don't you? At least that's what you've said....

I figured out why I'm not seeing popups or unders, Safari blocks them through a simple menu selection. Turning off the popup blocker was fun, it let me see all the junk I never wanted to see in the first place.

I'll have to look at a better way to track bandwidth once I click one of your provided links, since you want me to track the things you won't.

It's pretty sad I have to go so far out of my normal routine to see as many ads as you want... I've seen more today than I have all year.
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
Click for full size
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22375216 Tue, 12 May 2009 01:32:00 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22373652
The page in the picture had about 30 scripts running, all for advertisements. The others are about the same.

»www.bangvideobang.com/
»www.barfland.com/forum/
»www.alivedownload.com/software/s···sp3.html
»beta.down2crazy.com/rapidshare/S···ows.html
»vnn.bz/forum/137000-quarkexpress···ows.html

I can post millions if you like, or you can just search for something your interested in like most internet users do, and look at new sites.

Roughly 80% of my search results had "heavy" advertisement.

Also, for this to be fair you must count pop ups, even if you don't see them.

And as for a better way, you could use a router with DD-WRT to take your measurements, but then i guess you could not exclude what ever you choose, like pop ups.

I'm very anxious to see how you will refute top google searches. There are BILLIONS of these sites.
Click for full size
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22373652 Mon, 11 May 2009 19:56:20 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22373416
2. I'm not seeing pop-unders, so Safari isn't counting it.

3. Again, I just picked 4 COMMON sites at random.

4. If you have others POST THEM. YOU said there were BILLIONS of them.

5. If you don't like my data, POST YOUR OWN.

6. I don't care if they make money other ways or if they lose money, I just demonstrated bandwidth used by ads. You seem to be getting picky about what ads or sites count now...

7. Personally I don't see any of those ads normally, they're blocked by AdBlockPlus, a FREE add-on for Firefox. It's simple to install and usually pops up as a recommended add-on upon installation of Firefox.

8.Why should I worry about the less than 100 MB of ads I download a month, when I'm downloading over 100 GB of non ad data a month? I'm more worried about the 3-4 GB of ARP traffic hitting my router that I can't stop.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22373416 Mon, 11 May 2009 19:07:00 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22372409
Also, your test methods will need some revision. You will need to measure not only the refreshing java apps, but also the multiple pop unders (these must count as one "page")

also, you must explain how you separate the page data from the ads.

I believe this is fair.

****EDIT*****

as some pm's have pointed out to me most of the links you just used are really lite on ad's for reasons i had not thought about.

1.) LA times has several areas of income, including paid listings, and exclusive content. Also the fact that one of its main purposes is to promote its paper.

2.) youtube, which is losing money, also has several paid venues. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22372409 Mon, 11 May 2009 16:00:11 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22372289 said by DataRiker:

your using the exception to prove the rule.

If you were genuine, you would find web sites that use complex scripted ad, as well as multiple pop up and pop unders.

There are probably, literally 5 billion + plus pages like like the one i described.

what a joke !
I picked 4 popular, common pages: Yahoo, LA Times, Youtube, and PC World.

I shouldn't have to go out looking for your particular type of ads if they are so common.

If there are 5 billion, post a link to a couple.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22372289 Mon, 11 May 2009 15:37:41 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22372005
If you were genuine, you would find web sites that use complex scripted ad, as well as multiple pop up and pop unders.

There are probably, literally 5 billion + plus pages like like the one i described.

what a joke !]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22372005 Mon, 11 May 2009 14:49:27 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22369805 said by DataRiker:

Ad's are supposed to make the internet cheaper, not more expensive, that is the point of advertisement.

get it? The point of the ad is to support the cost website and possibly make it a profit. They're not supposed to make the internet cheaper or save the viewer of the website ANYTHING. The point of ads is to get the user to click them or get them interested enough to buy it.

P.S. I'm certainlly not fiber, nor am I part of any team with him. I just like debating baseless posters with no proof or facts to backup their game, it's an easy win for me.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22369805 Mon, 11 May 2009 01:30:13 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22369786 said by DataRiker:

Time Warner, at one time, proposed caps as low as 2 GB's, making your whole point invalid.Not even that low of a cap doesn't make my point invalid. At 100 KB per ad, that's over 20,000 ads.

How many pages do you have to surf to reach 10,000 ads? More than the person with Roadrunner Lite (the lowest tier of service at 768/128) will probably look at.

said by DataRiker:

Also, the size and sophistication of ad's are now in the realm of whole pages, which often refresh by themselves. Not as small as you claim.
1. Show us. Find a page with a big ad or alot of ads and take a screenshot of the byte count of those ads. Just to make it easy, I included screenshots of a few popular pages above. Pick em apart, tell me what you see.
2. How often do you see big, whole page ads like you are describing? I see those once a month.... maybe.

said by DataRiker:

So, according to you, its ok to steal as long as its a little bit.
WTF? Don't know what you mean by this. I said NOTHING of the sort.

said by DataRiker:

You shills better believe i will knock that stupid argument down every time it comes up.
You better do a better job soon because you have no proof, no evidence to back up your claims, and you are losing this argument big time.

You know if you provided even a little proof, you wouldn't be spending so much bandwidth on arguing your lost cause.
Click for full size
LA Times website
Click for full size
PC World website
Click for full size
Yahoo website
Click for full size
Youtube website
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22369786 Mon, 11 May 2009 01:21:02 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22369405
I fully expect ad's and respect the purpose they serve.

Ad's are supposed to make the internet cheaper, not more expensive, that is the point of advertisement.

get it?

(- I will stop posting now, I just want to say a public thanks to all the private support i have had during this "discussion" and yes I know fiber and CIA are a tag team, even possible the same person !)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22369405 Sun, 10 May 2009 23:06:49 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22369294
If YOU don't want ads.. DON'T VISIT SITES THAT HAVE THEM!

Until you can acknowledge that ads are not the problem of the ISP, then you're nothing more than an annoying troll with nothing better to do than start flames on message boards and call people names. Get it?

When are you going to get it that the ADS that you don't want are placed by the content providers of the site, and not your ISP. WHAT YOU CHOSE TO DOWNLOAD is YOUR problem.. no one elses...

GROW THE F UP!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22369294 Sun, 10 May 2009 22:40:22 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22369231
Also, the size and sophistication of ad's are now in the realm of whole pages, which often refresh by themselves. Not as small as you claim.

So, according to you, its ok to steal as long as its a little bit.

You shills better believe i will knock that stupid argument down every time it comes up.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22369231 Sun, 10 May 2009 22:26:12 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22367684 said by DataRiker:

YAds are way too small (not true, by the way)
Prove they are not too small. Give us examples and statistics to show otherwise.

What's the average ad byte size?
What's the average number of ads people see on a page?
What's the average number of pages people view in a month?
What's the average bandwidth consumed by ads by a person in a month?
What's the average person being billed per gigabyte past their "cap"?
Does the average bandwidth consumption by ads; 1) Pass the cap for the average person? 2) Add a sizable cost to the bill once the cap is passed?

Use your own favorite sites and habits to answer the questions, even if you aren't average, and show us how much it will cost YOU.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22367684 Sun, 10 May 2009 15:26:18 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22367441 said by DataRiker:

The customer should not have to know how to use a proxy + adblock + no script to use their internet connection. They don't have to because ads don't ad up to a meaningful amount of bandwidth if billing starts at 40GB like some of the providers. Even for those on lower plans, since their usage is likely much lower, ad don't add up to enough bandwidth.

It's the multi gigabyte movies, music, games, updates, and disk images being downloaded that add up, not the smattering of 100 KB ads (need over 10,000 of those to make a Gigabyte) that might pop up on a page while surfing.

Ad servers deal lots of small quick ads not large slow ads. Advertising is looking to get as many eye balls in their target demographic on them as they can, often to get click-throughs. Large or slow ads encourage users to avoid them and hit skip before they're done.

Ads also tend to pop up only while actively surfing, which isn't the big bandwidth user activity. Again it's the multi gigabyte movies, music, games, updates, and disk images being downloaded which are often started and then left unattended to finish. In the case of streaming media like movies surfing often stops while the media is viewed. Ads might be part of the streaming media, but again they're aren't big enough to make a difference.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22367441 Sun, 10 May 2009 14:13:26 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22367292 said by Pingmeister :

said by DataRiker:

your reply is block the ads its easy?

what a joke

and by the way an increasing number of sites are hosting more and more ads, which in many cases take up the majority of the pages bandwidth.

So it could be very reasonable that someone is paying say, 20 or 30 % of their bill just for ads.

The shills on this site are absolutely terrified of this point, and they will try very very hard to belittle and distort this as much as possible.
Smoothwall = firewall + NAT + caching proxy + a lot more - »www.smoothwall.org/

Even if you don't block ad networks (I don't - people in my house want the ads), you save subsequent transfers of not just the ads, but also any cacheable static data. Over the past year or so, I have saved about %20 on overall data transfer, and web browsing in my house is phenomenal. When you see the level of very reliable performance you get, and the level of control you have, you may never go back to a home consumer type NAT router-firewall. My Sonicwall SOHO3 has been retired to emergency backup for some time now.
This is so utterly ridiculous its retarded. Do you think even less than 1% of consumers have the know how to do this?

The fact that its even suggested proves my point.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22367292 Sun, 10 May 2009 13:26:51 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22367280
Until you give a useful answer the rest of us will just know your full of hot air only.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22367280 Sun, 10 May 2009 13:24:37 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22359251 said by DataRiker:

your reply is block the ads its easy?

what a joke

and by the way an increasing number of sites are hosting more and more ads, which in many cases take up the majority of the pages bandwidth.

So it could be very reasonable that someone is paying say, 20 or 30 % of their bill just for ads.

The shills on this site are absolutely terrified of this point, and they will try very very hard to belittle and distort this as much as possible.
Smoothwall = firewall + NAT + caching proxy + a lot more - »www.smoothwall.org/

Even if you don't block ad networks (I don't - people in my house want the ads), you save subsequent transfers of not just the ads, but also any cacheable static data. Over the past year or so, I have saved about %20 on overall data transfer, and web browsing in my house is phenomenal. When you see the level of very reliable performance you get, and the level of control you have, you may never go back to a home consumer type NAT router-firewall. My Sonicwall SOHO3 has been retired to emergency backup for some time now.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22359251 Fri, 08 May 2009 13:13:41 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22358937
The only place that I have a problem with ads being placed by an ISP or provider of data transport billing by the bit, is on their own sites where you have to visit a portal or something to manage your account.

Ads are an INCREDIBLY small part of the internet. I don't dismiss what you say at all.. okay? so don't get me wrong.. however, I will say that this particular argument line goes into MAJOR dangerous ground. It is 100% impossible to patrol everything in life and no matter how ANYONE tries, you can't always get it right and make it "fair".. which is what this is all boiling down to.. "what's fair".. which, by the way, isn't a right.

I've already gone on record that ISP based ads should not be on their own sites where a consumer MUST go in order to maintain their account, get their email, look at meters, etc.

Today, ALL data consumed is one flat rate as we know.. no one has an issue with that. However, now that people have the thought planted that someone wants to turn on a meter, everyone wants to start picking apart what they are going to pay for.

Again, it's funny, becuase there is not going to be metered billing.. this is a smoke screen distraction to get people occupied on something else while they make changes in other ares under your nose. You're the kitten and metered billing is the ball of yarn dangling over you right now.

I will also add that in the last 5 years, here on BBR, all these major disruptions that people have been worried about.. caps, etc. .. I've so far been correct on everyone. I am willing to put my name on the fact that metered billing won't happen. Caps and tiers? sure.. meters? No.

But, what's really going on right now is an attempt to raise the price of the monthly internet to make up for the impending loss and bleed of video and phone. If you don't believe me.. look at this as your example:

Cablevision introduces $99 100 mb line service. Look at the price and the speed. The price is the typical $99 price point they all want, and the 100mb gives you a pipe out to do as you please. IF they get the $99 internet customer, they've got the price point and you have the speed,.. be well! If you get the $99 internet AND you keep video and land line.. they win! Eventually, people will warm up to paying a higher price for internet again, oh, and love the speeds too.

They're just too afraid to simply raise the price of internet as they should have years ago slowly.. the problem is they raised Video, because they had to, thanks Hhollywood, and now the internet is harming their very core. Same said with telco with their core phone service.

This is just a massive mental PR campaign to get people opened to price increases. They are basically saying "prices are going to go up".. they beat people down enough with the fight, that sooner or later, people will just accept it as they always do.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22358937 Fri, 08 May 2009 12:22:58 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22358850
The provider could see potential profit in supporting companies that produce bandwidth intensive ads, or even starting their own. If they get to increase the amount of bandwidth the ad will use, they increase their own profit margins greatly. It is not so much how much it will cost 1 customer, but how much when you multiply that by the total number of customers.
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22358850 Fri, 08 May 2009 12:08:20 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22358793 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22358793 Fri, 08 May 2009 11:57:32 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22358787
For one, stop putting words in my mouth. In case you forgot, this is a message board on the internet and what I said is clearly in plain view.. even after I posted it. (And now you're looking really silly)

I never said stop using the internet.. I said it your CHOICE of where you go. Stop being so damn thick skulled and stop trying to be the victim.. it's not attractive. Your attitude, next, is one of looking for a welfare line. Yes, I said it! You're really whining loud here.

I don't know how much more clear I can make this... ADS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM OF THE ISP! And, like there is no 'separation of church and state' as some people try to twist it, there is no 'separation of ads and content' on the internet.

Why don't you stop spinning there, cuz all you're getting is dizzy, and explain how the ads on Weather.com, amazon.com, ebay.com, net and even the ones on the bottom of Yahoo messenger, for example, are not your problem?

You got a problem with ads, among other things, we get it! But, just because the industry is screaming they are looking for ways to meter bill that ads some how are no longer allowed? The "sites" *you chose* to visit place those ads there to support their site so that people like you can go visit for free. And, um, last I checked, even BBR, for non-premium members, has.. (all together now).. "ADS!" I wonder why that is?

You're dancing all around the real issue... address that, or, politely shut up.. All you're saying is "I don't want to have to pay to download the ads on the internet".. well, explain why that would be the problem of the ISP in the first place, or quite honestly.. grow up.

And second, you keep calling me a shill.. you keep saying that I support metered billing. Um, again, grow up. You've been told many times already that I don't support metered billing. I've told you here, I've told you before, and it's been posted on this site MANY times that I don't support it. The fact you keep name calling and bringing the same flawed argument up just shows your diminished presumed age, Riker. It's really telling as to your foundation which is nothing more than ranting at this point.

My argument is based not on supporting billing per byte.. my argument is based PURELY on the argument that if meter billing went into affect that ads shouldn't be allowed or that you shouldn't pay for them. Um, you want the ISP to be neutral.. to them, ads would be just bytes.. what you down load is between YOU and the SITE that YOU CHOSE to visit.. get it yet? You don't want that counted against you, either block ads, or avoid those sites.. that's your choice. But, the fact that you have this issue of downloading so many megs and megs and megs of ads all the time tells me your habbits on the internet.. you seem to hit a lot of sites that offer you alot of something for nothing.. all they ask is for you to see ads so THEY can pay to GIVE you content for free.. and, here you come along and are bitching about getting something for free.

You've got some real character there. I assume, too, by no other choice than the way you are behaving right now, that:

1) you don't feel you need to pay your full share in life.
2) the government has it's own money and you're entitled to some of it forgetting that its yours and everyone else's money that pays the government. 3) you think that redistribution of the wealth is acceptable (and forget that redistribution also takes money from upper lower and middle class people, not just the rich)
3) Life owes you something or that entitlement is a good thing.

And one last though on the ads.. your internet experience is what YOU CHOSE to make of it. As it was stated before, many people go on the internet and rarely see ads. Many people can use the internet for simply sending email, chatting, and checking their bank accounts - yup! They still do as little as that!

No one here is "terrified".. just you saying it doesn't mean it's true. Because you mis-use the term "shill" doesn't mean that anyone other than you is one. (It's really getting old and you using it is only flame bating people which is against the TOS here, but you don't care about little things like that do you?) And a sore spot? no.. I just feel compelled right now to put someone like you in your place. We're all entitled to our opinions, however, by calling me and others "shills" and ignoring what the "other side" is saying makes you an extremist. You're so happy to rant about ads, you've forgotten or missed that I've got and stated positions that are on both sides of the argument..

But, enjoy yourself.. and the free ride in life you're looking for. And remember, just because you pay "something" for a service doesn't give you cart blanc right to control it.

.. or maybe I don't care becuase I get up every day, bust my a*s, work in the middle America, lower middle class world and earn EVERY penny I make with blisters on my hands (to which people like you assume I'm rich) while I know I can afford the internet even if it were metered.. I don't WANT it metered.. but if they did, it would not affect me. The value of the internet, and the money it's saved me from the past on so many other services, is worth upwards to the $100 a month that I had to pay back in the early 2000's for a 256K line.

Enjoy!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22358787 Fri, 08 May 2009 11:56:15 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22357461 said by DataRiker:

Let's see so far we have

A.) Ads are way too small (not true, by the way)

AND

B.) you should be using an Ad blocker (silly me !)
Prove either one is not true or won't work. Tell us how much ad bandwidth the average user or even JUST YOURSELF uses in a month compared to everything else.

Actually just tell us how much bandwidth overall you use.

If you can't do that, YOU ARE A TROLL with no facts, just FUD and scare mongering.

or is your only come back to say the contrary?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22357461 Fri, 08 May 2009 02:33:58 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22357453
I will just send the ad portion of my bill to fiber guy, its so small he won't mind.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22357453 Fri, 08 May 2009 02:23:30 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22357437
Let's see so far we have

A.) Ads are way too small (not true, by the way)

AND

B.) you should be using an Ad blocker (silly me !)

Look at how terrified you shills are of this point. I must have hit a sore spot.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22357437 Fri, 08 May 2009 02:10:07 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22357222
Since when did ads on, say, Amazon.com or Ebay.com, become the problem of your ISP or your bill? Like it or not, ads are content of the site you visit. If you don't like the site you visit having ads, DON'T VISIT!

Your continual posting and ranting about "ads.. ads.. ads" is very clearly telling of how you think you have some kind of inherit right to not view an ad.. You also keep forgetting that the site you visit is supported by those ads. However, you wouldn't get it becuase while you're not a "shill".. you're someone with an entitlement attitude. You also are someone that wants their cake and eat it too..

I'm guessing you're one that wants the ISP to be a dumb pipe.. so, stop making it the dumb pipe's problem about the sites YOU CHOSE to visit.

Ads are a fact of the internet. Deal with it.. yes, I said it.. deal with it.. and get some cheese for that wine.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22357222 Fri, 08 May 2009 00:29:16 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22357193 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22357193 Fri, 08 May 2009 00:21:41 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22355757 said by DataRiker:

your reply is block the ads its easy?

what a joke

and by the way an increasing number of sites are hosting more and more ads, which in many cases take up the majority of the pages bandwidth.

So it could be very reasonable that someone is paying say, 20 or 30 % of their bill just for ads.

The shills on this site are absolutely terrified of this point, and they will try very very hard to belittle and distort this as much as possible.
Easy. AdBlock Plus and a hosts file catch 99% of the ads that may be on the sites I surf.

I download over 100GB of data a month, yet the ads might add up to 100 MB even without the ad blocking stuff.

If the limit is even TWCs low 40GB before metered billing starts, how do you get 20 or 30% of a bill going to ads? How much data do you think the AVERAGE user consumes?

If all you did was surf MySpace, then maybe you'd get percentage of ads you're thinking of, but you'd get nowhere near enough data use to pass the limit to hit billable data usage.

To get alot of data use you're downloading movies, music, disk images, games, updates, etc, not ad filled web surfing. Mass bandwidth usage (say 40GB and up) doesn't come with ads.

Prove otherwise or shutup.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22355757 Thu, 07 May 2009 19:06:39 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22354708 --
Obama '08. Will help resolve the terrible broadband issues we have that put us so far behind other countries.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22354708 Thu, 07 May 2009 15:17:02 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22354457
Have a good day.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22354457 Thu, 07 May 2009 14:28:55 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22353641
Long walk.. short pier.

I could care less about the meter billing argument becuase as I've said before, this is all a smoke screen to distract people like you from what's really going on behind the curtain.. You REALLY think that metered billing is going to happen? no.. it's not. It's like the H1N1 flu and it being some kind of Pandemic.. give me a break. The REGULAR flu kills thousands each year.. it's a freaking distraction, or are you too distracted to see it?

Either way, it doesn't matter. If you have metered billing, it still doesn't change a damn thing! YOU pull the content from the sites YOU visit.. if you're worried about what you use, then don't visit sites you're worried about - plain and simple!

Gas costs money and is metered. If you don't want to use so much, then don't drive as much. If you visit Amazon.com and you're being fed ads, that's not AT&T's fault.. before metered billing, you're pulling those same ads.. but are you bitching about the bandwidth now? Of course not.. becuase, well, as you say, you're being a jerk. (next time, find another way to start your post)

Further, you're sitting there, like an illiterate web surfer trying to be the one making the point that is right, make a point to be right, having missed that I've said not once, but 5 times, that I do not support metered billing... go read! It's fundamental!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22353641 Thu, 07 May 2009 12:09:34 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22353613 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22353613 Thu, 07 May 2009 12:03:23 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22353329
You do realize that as you read one web page the advertisement window could have uploaded multiple advertisements in the same banner ad space, right?

So basically if we go to metered billing that shit has to stop. If there is metered billing I have to be able to manage things myself. Lets say I pay for access to a site like Fark.com or something else like that. So I'm paying to be there yet I am not in control of the ad's that cycle through the top banner. It could be as innocuous as a single JPG or it could switch to a flash based ad 30 seconds later. Regardless, its out of my control.

Yes yes, close the page, but no, I can't I'm paying for access to that site.

See the dilemma?

I read you reply more as wanting to be "right" about your point (argument) than something you can really get behind as a practice you would implement if you were an ISP.

Don't you as a consumer want to be in control of the services you buy? If you don't, you're a shill.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22353329 Thu, 07 May 2009 11:08:17 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22352775
cw]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22352775 Thu, 07 May 2009 09:12:06 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22352260
what a joke

and by the way an increasing number of sites are hosting more and more ads, which in many cases take up the majority of the pages bandwidth.

So it could be very reasonable that someone is paying say, 20 or 30 % of their bill just for ads.

The shills on this site are absolutely terrified of this point, and they will try very very hard to belittle and distort this as much as possible. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22352260 Thu, 07 May 2009 03:35:55 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22352242 said by DataRiker:

You still have yet to address the fact the more ads = a larger bill. You only counter is "who cares"
The counter is the ads aren't large enough to affect your bill.

Are you really getting GIGABYTES worth of ads? No, maybe a few hundred megabytes... How does the amount of data in the ads compare to the caps needed to be billed by the GB?

Your bitching is equivalent to complaining about being charged for the vapors and drips coming off the gas pump when you just put 20 gallons in your car. Or it's the amount of milk left coating the container when it's too empty to fill a glass. Yes it's measurable, no it doesn't make a difference in your bill.

If you think otherwise, show us your bandwidth logs JUST for ads you downloaded. Tell us how many GBs of ads you downloaded last month. What's the ratio of ad bandwidth to requested data? 1 to 99?

If it's that big of a problem, BLOCK the ads. There's LOTS of solutions for that, many of them free.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22352242 Thu, 07 May 2009 03:15:55 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22352213
So, that means more ads equals a bigger bill. A contradiction on the point of advertising and a sneaky way of double dipping.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22352213 Thu, 07 May 2009 02:58:39 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22352200
Oh, and for the "who cares", i would assume anyone who pays an internet bill.

You still have yet to address the fact the more ads = a larger bill. You only counter is "who cares"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22352200 Thu, 07 May 2009 02:48:38 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22352161
Again, metered billing doesn't change anything on what YOU pull down from the net. You could visit a site today and it has no ads. Visit tomorrow, they're there.. Ads are content just as anything else on the page and is part of what you get when you want to visit someone else's site.. seriously, time to get over that part.

On the other hand, with the so-called and current "un-metered" billing system, you see them nitpicking over ads?

HOW you pay for the data you get doesn't change how things come down your way.

I'm not going to respond on this anymore.. there are WAY too many ridiculous arguments going on here now about "ads" on websites.. The issue of ads goes back to the site itself. They allow you to often visit the site for free of charge. Would you rather pay for internet AND pay the sites you visit? .. are you advocating less choice for yourself on line? .. by all means.. continue on. Ads and internet connections are not related.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22352161 Thu, 07 May 2009 02:19:31 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22352146
Your post sounds a lot like nanny-ism at it's best. Again, let me be clear since the memory span on this site is small.. I don't support metered billing. However, no matter HOW you are being charged for the internet, it's still the user that is the cause for data to flow the direction of your modem. Metered billing isn't enough to change how you get your content. You click, you get what you get. You have NO idea if when you launch a site if you're going to get ads or not.. that's still your issue and no one else's.

Any other ad related issues regarding the provider, see my post above. ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22352146 Thu, 07 May 2009 02:14:41 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22351947 said by fiberguy:

said by DataRiker:

and will they subtract all advertisements from my quota?
... why should they? Your computer pulled it in from a site that you requested. That's the same thing as saying you shouldn't have to pay for hold and call routing times when you call a company long distance on a metered service.

But, in the end, it doesn't matter becuase metered billing isn't needed.
But if you call long distance and "know" you have to hold a long period of time you have an option to hang up. if you are pulling an add you know you don't want example. video ads on web sites. you do not have a choice to stop/close the connection.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22351947 Thu, 07 May 2009 00:32:10 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22351927 said by fiberguy:

When you're talking about stuff coming from the provider's site, sure. I had a feeling that this one would come up. ;)

The only thing I could counter that with is simply put, if you're logging onto a provider's site from their line, they direct you to a non-ad served site. Or, the other thing would be that you still have the option NOT to visit their site as well. But, I do agree with double dipping being wrong.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Whats to stop them from making bandwidth intensive ads? Or investing in companies that due?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22351927 Thu, 07 May 2009 00:24:38 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22350443
The only thing I could counter that with is simply put, if you're logging onto a provider's site from their line, they direct you to a non-ad served site. Or, the other thing would be that you still have the option NOT to visit their site as well. But, I do agree with double dipping being wrong.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22350443 Wed, 06 May 2009 19:00:56 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22350334 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22350334 Wed, 06 May 2009 18:40:36 EDT Re: F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22350286 said by DataRiker:

and will they subtract all advertisements from my quota? ... why should they? Your computer pulled it in from a site that you requested. That's the same thing as saying you shouldn't have to pay for hold and call routing times when you call a company long distance on a metered service.

But, in the end, it doesn't matter becuase metered billing isn't needed.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-F-this-22350286 Wed, 06 May 2009 18:30:00 EDT F this http://www.dslreports.com/forum/F-this-22349270
my year 2000 internet is starting to look better everyday]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/F-this-22349270 Wed, 06 May 2009 15:17:55 EDT