Topic 'Re: MLPPP Poll' in forum 'TekSavvy' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22354967 en Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:54:59 EDT Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:54:59 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22381922
AFAIK MLPPP doesnt cost you guys anything, its an option you guys just switched on in your equipement, its not like were using up a static ip or some limited ressource...

Why start charging for something as easy as flipping on a light switch once and forgeting about it?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22381922 Wed, 13 May 2009 10:19:07 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22363022
said by AdrianF:

The fact that R0cky, Marc and Gabe (and probably everybody at TSI for that matter) listened to many of us (myself included) that it would be great if they could bundle S/MLPPP with the Static IP and 1 Meg Usenet Access. This was a way of "giving users" something else for their money. To me, $4 for that usenet access is worth it in itself but now you're giving me a Static IP and S/MLPPP access as well.
I agree, taking the Static IP (+ included Usenet) is good value for the extra $4 cost. And you get to keep MLPPP as well. ;)

Will likely be taking that option myself. Had the TSI Usenet option in the past, my first newsgroups subscription ever. Moved later to other full providers, due to the limited retention on those days (about 30 days).

Nowadays, with average 125 days retention, the TSI usenet offering is a sweet deal for this low cost.

Only thing I don't like is the Static IP part - I like the ease of disconnecting and reconnecting in a new random IP anytime. :(
--
Compare prices for Canadian retailers, Find 'Hot Deals', meet nice people at PriceNetwork.ca]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22363022 Sat, 09 May 2009 10:01:28 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22362865 said by DavidT:

The $4/mo fee isn't just going sit in a decorative basket in their office, it is going to pay for the new equipment which will be providing us with better MLPPP service.

4) If you don't like crappy throttled non-MLPPP service, well, soon there will be a tiny little $4/mo charge you can pay for MLPPP access. If you don't appreciate that, then you can fight with TSI and the rest of us in getting Bell to stop throttling wholesale DSL access instead of blaming the "victims".

I agree that TSI still needs to take responsibility when it screws up, just like any company should, but they haven't screwed up and throttling is out of their control. And they are doing absolutely everything they can in order to ensure that what Bell does affects its customers as little as possible.
David:

People are going to bitch and moan no-matter-what. What TSI is trying to do here is the most fair way of handling a situation they've created.

They offered S/MLPPP to users as an unsuported feature (which was supported here by many happy TSI subscribers).

The stability of equipment being used to offer S/MLPPP has since started to affect non-S/MLPPP users so TSI had to either pull the plug on this experiment or officially begin to support it.

To support it means outlaying more time, resources and, ultimately, money. R0cky has stated countless times in these forums that the extra $4 isn't even going to become profitable for them for several years and by then who knows how the landscape will look.

The fact that R0cky, Marc and Gabe (and probably everybody at TSI for that matter) listened to many of us (myself included) that it would be great if they could bundle S/MLPPP with the Static IP and 1 Meg Usenet Access. This was a way of "giving users" something else for their money. To me, $4 for that usenet access is worth it in itself but now you're giving me a Static IP and S/MLPPP access as well.

I don't TSI is being unfair whatsoever. They could've just said: "Screw you all, and you can pay the $4 on top of the Static IP/Usenet Access" but they didn't simply because that's not the way TSI operates.

I'd like to than everyone at the office for listening. I know there are some "pissed off" customers but you're not going to win all of the time. I applaud, as has always been the case, your forward thinking in trying to give users what they want/need.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22362865 Sat, 09 May 2009 08:48:21 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22362769 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22362769 Sat, 09 May 2009 07:43:30 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360153 Tekavvy makes about $8 per 200GB account user, after what goes to Bell and the bandwidth fees to peer1.

Then take at least $4 from that to pay all the employees and owners salaries.
Leaving $4 is made in profit from the average user.
That $4 pays for all this equipment and GAS links to bell already.

Since MLPPP users will have to pay another $4 and they longer will use the old equipment or old GAS links

MLPPP users are in essence paying twice now]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360153 Fri, 08 May 2009 18:38:33 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360849 said by DavidT:

2) How is it any different? It isn't. It's the exact same. They have their own equipment, and we help them pay for it every month.
We don't help them "pay for it every month", companies amortize the acquisition cost over a certain period of time and after amortization is over, you're down to operating and maintenance costs. At $0.25/month net profit per subscriber and 40k total accounts, TSI could actually afford a new ERX every six months.

said by DavidT:

3) Here's the thing, it won't be same-or-worse service. The $4/mo fee isn't just going sit in a decorative basket in their office, it is going to pay for the new equipment which will be providing us with better MLPPP service.
That 'better' MLPPP service will only last until Bell tells its DPI boxes to terminate any non-PPPoE traffic or take some other similar measure since nothing in GAS tariffs says Bell has to go beyond basic PPPoE.

said by DavidT:

4) If you don't like crappy throttled non-MLPPP service, well, soon there will be a tiny little $4/mo charge you can pay for MLPPP access.
A 13% tack-on fee is not 'tiny' for normal people.

said by DavidT:

(...) and throttling is out of their control.
Regardless of who is responsible for service degradation, it does not change the fact that if TSI subscribers wanted to file a class-action suit against throttling and DPI, we would still have to sue TSI first because we have no direct legal recourse against Bell until the courts recognize Bell as the party of interest and allows the class-action to go after Bell afterwards.

That throttling is out of TSI's control is legally irrelevant. TSI, as the public agent with which I am doing business, has to accept all blame for its suppliers' shortcomings and take whatever means available to them to resolve the situation.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360849 Fri, 08 May 2009 18:37:27 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360397 --
"No matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360397 Fri, 08 May 2009 16:54:53 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360382 --
Working to bring you closer to a Bell and Rogers free household.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360382 Fri, 08 May 2009 16:52:22 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360373 --
"No matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360373 Fri, 08 May 2009 16:51:14 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360357 said by El Quintron:

Probably the best answer at this point is:

"Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out."

'nuff said.
As funny and relieving as it would be to say that, it's not really true.

I think TSI would prefer keeping as many customers as they possibly can.

But really, people are just greatly overreacting to such as small and incredibly reasonable change. MLPPP has simply become too expensive for TSI to provide it for free.

I think a lot of people are just getting worked up over how some of us (including me) are saying that it wasn't an official service before. But regardless, look at it whatever way you want, TekSavvy needs to start charging for MLPPP. That doesn't change regardless of how you look at MLPPP right now.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360357 Fri, 08 May 2009 16:48:06 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360324
"Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out."

'nuff said.
--
Working to bring you closer to a Bell and Rogers free household.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360324 Fri, 08 May 2009 16:42:29 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360294 said by InvalidError:

And TSI could have turned MLPPP off to fix that problem if they were NOT supporting MLPPP. All problems solved and MLPPP would then be officially NOT supported nor available.

How is that any different from the last 10 years TSI has been in business? That's a pretty pointless 'point' to try to make here.

Tell that to everyone who's going to be affected by the $3/month hike Bell seeks on GAS tariffs and see how many think a 10% hike for same-or-worse service is 'nothing'. For most rational people who are not already signed up for static IP/newsgroup, MLPPP looks like a 13% hike and very few people would accept that from any common utility.

Since you like bogus facts so much...
Cold-Hard-Fact: As a TSI subscriber, the only entity I can legally blame for the crappy throttled internet service I would be getting without MLPPP to bypass Bell's throttling is TSI.
1) Guess what, they didn't turn off MLPPP. Instead they decided to actually please their customers like companies are suppose to do. Since so many TSI customers still want MLPPP, they had to improve the service as it was beginning to interfere with non-MLPPP users.

2) How is it any different? It isn't. It's the exact same. They have their own equipment, and we help them pay for it every month. Part of our $29.95 or $39.95 that we pay every month goes to paying off that equipment. Now that they're buying additional equipment to handle MLPPP, it needs to be paid off as well. Thus, they need to charge for it as well.

3) Here's the thing, it won't be same-or-worse service. The $4/mo fee isn't just going sit in a decorative basket in their office, it is going to pay for the new equipment which will be providing us with better MLPPP service.

4) If you don't like crappy throttled non-MLPPP service, well, soon there will be a tiny little $4/mo charge you can pay for MLPPP access. If you don't appreciate that, then you can fight with TSI and the rest of us in getting Bell to stop throttling wholesale DSL access instead of blaming the "victims".

I agree that TSI still needs to take responsibility when it screws up, just like any company should, but they haven't screwed up and throttling is out of their control. And they are doing absolutely everything they can in order to ensure that what Bell does affects its customers as little as possible.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360294 Fri, 08 May 2009 16:36:39 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360278
That is 100% correct.
Who else can you blame for your service?
Its your ISP's fault for its there service you're provided.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360278 Fri, 08 May 2009 16:33:20 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360247 said by DavidT:

Fact: MLPPP was causing stability issues with the network, whether you noticed them or not.
Fact: They need to replace the equipment in order to provide better MLPPP service.
Fact: Money doesn't grow on trees. The equipment they are buying is expensive and requires funding.
And TSI could have turned MLPPP off to fix that problem if they were NOT supporting MLPPP. All problems solved and MLPPP would then be officially NOT supported nor available.

said by DavidT:

Fact: Money doesn't grow on trees. The equipment they are buying is expensive and requires funding.
How is that any different from the last 10 years TSI has been in business? That's a pretty pointless 'point' to try to make here.

said by DavidT:

Fact: $4 is absolutely nothing.
Tell that to everyone who's going to be affected by the $3/month hike Bell seeks on GAS tariffs and see how many think a 10% hike for same-or-worse service is 'nothing'. For most rational people who are not already signed up for static IP/newsgroup, MLPPP looks like a 13% hike and very few people would accept that from any common utility.

said by DavidT:

TekSavvy isn't the one to blame.
Since you like bogus facts so much...
Cold-Hard-Fact: As a TSI subscriber, the only entity I can legally blame for the crappy throttled internet service I would be getting without MLPPP to bypass Bell's throttling is TSI.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360247 Fri, 08 May 2009 16:26:54 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360237
Regular user
Gross Income: $8
Salary Costs: $4
Total Profits: $4
Profits then goto cover, GAS links from Bell and Equipment

MLPPP user:
$8 profits

MLPPP users still pay for a single GAS link they're using and a single set of equipment, that is now separate from the non-mlppp users

Meaning Teksavvy makes double from MLPPP users.

For multi link MLPPP user with 2 lines.
Its $12 profits from $8
Then also, add $4 more since multi-link mlppp users don't cost twice the amount in salary costs only once

For a multi link MLPPP user with 3 lines
its $16 profits from $12
Add $8 for 3 line users, since it doesn't really cost 3x the salary costs for a single user only once.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360237 Fri, 08 May 2009 16:25:51 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360232 said by DavidT:

said by adisor19:

As mentioned before, if the 4$ extra is being added to my bill, i'm moving to Videotron.

I wouldn't care so much for the 4$ if i only had 1 DSL line as it would still be cheaper then Videotron, but with 2 DSL lines that i currently have bonded with MLPPP through Teksavvy, it makes no sense anymore and it looks like a money grab to me. MLPPP gave me 2 things :

1) Unthrottled internet
2) Better upstream compared with the cable competition

All of the above for roughly the same price that Videotron charges for their business unlimited account. Adding 4$ extra puts the advantage back in Videotron's court in terms of price. Videotron already had NO LIMITS compared with TSI's 400GB that i already hit so again, not much here to make me stay.

All in all TSI loses 2 DSL accounts from me if this fee will be required to bond 2 lines with MLPPP.

Adi
How is that possible?

Videotron Business Unlimited is $100/mo. Two Premium lines with Teksavvy + Band rate + $4 MLPPP is a maximum of $88.90/mo.
It's 70$/month and i already have the modem. If i sign a contract with them, they give 3 months free as well as free installation. Looks like win win situation to me.

Teksavvy, your move, i await.

Adi]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360232 Fri, 08 May 2009 16:24:48 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360171 said by adisor19:

As mentioned before, if the 4$ extra is being added to my bill, i'm moving to Videotron.

I wouldn't care so much for the 4$ if i only had 1 DSL line as it would still be cheaper then Videotron, but with 2 DSL lines that i currently have bonded with MLPPP through Teksavvy, it makes no sense anymore and it looks like a money grab to me. MLPPP gave me 2 things :

1) Unthrottled internet
2) Better upstream compared with the cable competition

All of the above for roughly the same price that Videotron charges for their business unlimited account. Adding 4$ extra puts the advantage back in Videotron's court in terms of price. Videotron already had NO LIMITS compared with TSI's 400GB that i already hit so again, not much here to make me stay.

All in all TSI loses 2 DSL accounts from me if this fee will be required to bond 2 lines with MLPPP.

Adi
How is that possible?

Videotron Business Unlimited is $100/mo. Two Premium lines with Teksavvy + Band rate + $4 MLPPP is a maximum of $88.90/mo.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360171 Fri, 08 May 2009 16:13:42 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360142
I wouldn't care so much for the 4$ if i only had 1 DSL line as it would still be cheaper then Videotron, but with 2 DSL lines that i currently have bonded with MLPPP through Teksavvy, it makes no sense anymore and it looks like a money grab to me. MLPPP gave me 2 things :

1) Unthrottled internet
2) Better upstream compared with the cable competition

All of the above for roughly the same price that Videotron charges for their business unlimited account. Adding 4$ extra puts the advantage back in Videotron's court in terms of price. Videotron already had NO LIMITS compared with TSI's 400GB that i already hit so again, not much here to make me stay.

All in all TSI loses 2 DSL accounts from me if this fee will be required to bond 2 lines with MLPPP.

Adi]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360142 Fri, 08 May 2009 16:06:26 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360089 said by RuralOtt:

said by DavidT:

Who gives a nut if the service was supported or not, or whether people considered it a perk or not!
Because people keeps bringing up the fact that it was not supported as an argument for the additional fee, however small it is.
And as valid as the argument is, it doesn't matter. What I wrote above is what matters!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360089 Fri, 08 May 2009 15:52:48 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360082 said by DavidT:

Who gives a nut if the service was supported or not, or whether people considered it a perk or not!
Because people keeps bringing up the fact that it was not supported as an argument for the additional fee, however small it is.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360082 Fri, 08 May 2009 15:51:32 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360062
Fact: MLPPP was causing stability issues with the network, whether you noticed them or not.

Fact: They need to replace the equipment in order to provide better MLPPP service.

Fact: Money doesn't grow on trees. The equipment they are buying is expensive and requires funding.

Fact: Marc has already stated that they would have been buying new equipment regardless of the Juniper fiasco being discussed in other threads.

Fact: $4 is absolutely nothing. The price of TSI's services haven't changed at all since I first heard of them. Now it has come to the point where they need to begin charging a measly $4 for MLPPP service, and everyone is in an uproar over nothing.

It's 4 frickin dollars! If you can't afford $4 for MLPPP, then you need to start cutting back on your expenses. TekSavvy isn't the one to blame.

Things cost money. Not just for consumers, but for companies too.

Rocky has already stated that even at $4, they won't be gaining profit from it for a long time to come.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360062 Fri, 08 May 2009 15:46:10 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360046 said by Pretty much :

Pretty much accurate
But teksavvy probally only makes $8 per one of those subscribers, or atleast thats what the belief is.
Ah, that's the hole in my calculation. Thank you !!!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360046 Fri, 08 May 2009 15:41:54 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22359895 said by Robrr:

69% are ok with the fee
17.2% don't care
13.6% are not going to use MLPPP or are leaving because of it
More like
15+8 = 23 won't pay MLPPP fee
59 = Willing to pay

and
30+59 = 89 don't count cause they either already pay or don't use MLPPP and never will

Leaving 23/82 not going to pay the MLPPP fee.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22359895 Fri, 08 May 2009 15:40:08 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360028 said by RuralOtt See Profile
Tek gains:
838 * $4 = $3352

Tek lost:
112 * ($30) = ($3360)

If I was Tek, I certainly hope that this poll is flaw, and there isn't anywhere near 100 subscribers leaving Tekk because of the changes in MLPPP.
[/BQUOTE :

Pretty much accurate
But teksavvy probally only makes $8 per one of those subscribers, or atleast thats what the belief is.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360028 Fri, 08 May 2009 15:38:58 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360017 said by 18526190:

It wasn't free because they never offered it. The service was just there. Nor free or fee.
For all those who do not plan to pay for single-line MLPPP, it is the same difference.

TSI may not have officially offered the service but it had full power to turn MLPPP off and readily eliminate the root cause of their Juniper crashes. Instead, they researched work-arounds to maintain a service you claim they were "not offering".

Isn't going out of your way to support a service you are NOT offering (and could have turned off at any point in time) a really strange non-business-like thing to do? And TSI has been at it for over a year.

By not turning off MLPPP after its use became a documented fact within TSI and the general DSL community, TSI has implicitly confirmed its offer of MLPPP services.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360017 Fri, 08 May 2009 15:37:46 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360015 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22360015 Fri, 08 May 2009 15:37:17 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22359995 There's 143 people who have voted that actually care about MLPPP. Of those 143...
>119 are willing to pay for it or already pay for it.

Your conclusion is incorrect due to the wording of the poll.

Out of all those only
- 61 is explicitly willing to pay for it.
- 16+8 = 24 are explicitly against it

The static IP group and the group not using mlppp cannot be counted either way as there are no options to voice the opinions on how they feel even if it doesn't affect them.
Click for full size
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22359995 Fri, 08 May 2009 15:34:11 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22359993 said by AkFubar:

Those paying $4 is monthly recurring revenue though while those leaving will be a one time loss. ;)
I hope you are being sarcastic with that smiley.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22359993 Fri, 08 May 2009 15:33:57 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22359982 --
"No matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22359982 Fri, 08 May 2009 15:32:26 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22359974 said by TSI Gabe:

I'm OK with paying an extra $4 I currently dont have a Static IP 60 (34.6%)
I already have a Static IP so whatever! 59 (34.1%)
I don't use MLPPP so i dont care 30 (17.3%)
No way no more MLPPP for me 16 (9.2%)
I'm switching to a different provider to get MLPPP without a cost increase 8 (4.6%)
At the time I am writing this post, there are 173 votes

Let's assume that there are 2000 MLPPP users.

The 30 votes for "I don't use MLPPP so i dont care", should not be used, as they are not part of the current "2000" anyway.

Those who voted "I already have a Static IP so whatever!" or "No way no more MLPPP for me" are a wash, since they neither add or subtract to Tek's revenue stream.
However, let's assume that those are part of the current "2000", though, it's possible that some voted for "I already have a Static IP so whatever!" may not be using MLPP right now.

So, the two options that directly affect Tek's revenue are "I'm OK with paying an extra $4 I currently don't have a Static IP" and "I'm switching to a different provider to get MLPPP without a cost increase"

Effective votes: 173 - 30 = 143

"I'm OK with paying an extra $4 I currently don't have a Static IP": 60 / 143 = 0.419 ~ 41.9%
"I'm switching to a different provider to get MLPPP without a cost increase": 8 / 143 = 0.0559 ~ 5.6%

41.8% of 2000 = 836
5.6% of 2000 = 112

Tek gains:
838 * $4 = $3352

Tek lost:
112 * ($30) = ($3360)

EDIT:
But since Tek only make ~$8 per subscriber anyway:
112 * ($8) = ($896)


If I was Tek, I certainly hope that this poll is flaw, and there isn't anywhere near 100 subscribers leaving Tekk because of the changes in MLPPP.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22359974 Fri, 08 May 2009 15:28:18 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22359954
But you have a biased (only dslr users)/ unrepresentative sample size.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22359954 Fri, 08 May 2009 15:23:20 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22359948
119 are willing to pay for it or already pay for it.

24 are not willing.

That's 83% vs. 17%]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22359948 Fri, 08 May 2009 15:22:22 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22359685
Secondly marketers take much care to create unbaises surver (poll). This polls options are very biased.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22359685 Fri, 08 May 2009 14:34:50 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22359658
69% are ok with the fee
17.2% don't care
13.6% are not going to use MLPPP or are leaving because of it

Seems pretty definitive at this point that the MLPPP fee is ok by most.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22359658 Fri, 08 May 2009 14:29:38 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22358833 said by InvalidError:

said by RuralOtt:

I read in one of the (many) threads that there are currently 2000 users that use MLPPP, is that number correct?
I'm only using MLPPP because it is free for the time being.
It wasn't free because they never offered it. The service was just there. Nor free or fee.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22358833 Fri, 08 May 2009 12:04:58 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22358608 said by RuralOtt:

I read in one of the (many) threads that there are currently 2000 users that use MLPPP, is that number correct?
Those would be the numbers posted by some TSI folks so they should be reasonably accurate.

The questions are:
1) how many of those 2k users would be willing to pay more for official MLPPP support?
2) how many would sign up with TSI specifically because of official MLPPP support?
3) will there be enough subscribers on the MLPPP plan to warrant dedicated hardware?
4) would the extra hardware still be necessary if/when Juniper fixes its firmware so ERXes no longer mysteriously crash when handling a mix of PPPoE, single and multi-line MLPPP?

I'm only using MLPPP because it is free for the time being.

Having to buy an extra ERX for MLPPP is a very expensive work-around for Juniper's failure to fix their firmware... Juniper should be LENDING that extra work-around hardware for free while they work on resolving their firmware issue(s).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22358608 Fri, 08 May 2009 11:22:39 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22358463
(a free bump) :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22358463 Fri, 08 May 2009 10:56:21 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22357458 said by DavidT:

Jebus frack people... He's a troll! He has stated oodles of times now that he's only here to create a fuss.

What do we do with trolls?

We don't feed them! We have covered all of his points, but he just keeps going around in circles because people keep on chasing him. Just leave it be.

Edit: Argh.
I don't come here much :P
Who cares I'm bored lol]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22357458 Fri, 08 May 2009 02:33:25 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22356435
@TSI. It seems that the usenet bunny has left the hat and the subject is on the table. While at it, why not look for some better usenet wholesaler deals for you as ISP?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22356435 Thu, 07 May 2009 21:38:18 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22356388 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22356388 Thu, 07 May 2009 21:26:36 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22355866
4$ is a dessent price for a static ip. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22355866 Thu, 07 May 2009 19:26:59 EDT Re: MLPPP Poll http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22355852 The loss of the MLPPP pushed me to decide - but I've been planning on breaking my torrenting habit for awhile now.
I still think the TS $4 package is an excellent deal - if it suits your needs.
Can't vote since my choice wasn't there...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-MLPPP-Poll-22355852 Thu, 07 May 2009 19:24:48 EDT