| reply to chronoss2009
Re: Sure if it was cheaper i COMPLETELY fail to see how APARTMENT RENTING is relevant to a discussion on RESIDENTIAL INTERNET SERVICE. |
|
| Then you also COMPLETELY failed to read the post he replied to! |
|
| reply to cornelius785
said by cornelius785:i COMPLETELY fail to see how APARTMENT RENTING is relevant to a discussion on RESIDENTIAL INTERNET SERVICE. you didnt read me or the guy above did you i should start complaining about people that CANT READ after all half the people round here whine for FAR LESS |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3
1 edit | reply to jackknife
said by jackknife:Then you also COMPLETELY failed to read the post he replied to! My post was perfectly fine and accurate.. just because you RENT something doesn't give you unabridged free and open access to do as you please with it.. like the guy who replied to me was saying with apartments.. he's simply demonstrating the basic facts that renters DO have... those facts he speaks of are those that are already outlined in the laws and leases. NO, they do not have the right to tear holes in walls.. they can be evicted for that.. don't care if it's canada either... landlords have protections granted to them. NO, they can't just have as many people move in as they want.. there are laws on how many people can live in a unit based on number of rooms.. the guy is full of it.
Just like my example was to draw to renting, you rent a connection to the internet.. it also comes with rules.. an earlier poster had mentioned that it was "my internet and I'll damn well do as I please with it".. which again, is false.. you'll do anything you WANT with it so long as you're not violating the rules.. I guess service agreements mean nothing.. and that's fine.. ignore them.. just don't come here crying foul and how rights were taken away.. those rights that you never had in the first place.
What's sad is that there is this whole generation of people that think things like license applications, service agreements, etc. are just obstacles and inconveniences that mean NOTHING however you have to pretend you accept them to get what you really want.. and that those agreements, etc. really mean nothing. |
|
 rchandraStargate Universe fanPremium
join:2000-11-09
14225-2105 | reply to cornelius785
said by cornelius785:i COMPLETELY fail to see how APARTMENT RENTING is relevant to a discussion on RESIDENTIAL INTERNET SERVICE. Let's see...
•In each case, the lessee doesn't own a thing; the landlord owns the building, the telco/cableco/etc. owns the network (yes, you are leasing an Internet connection).
•Both want some sum of money per month for a service; in the case of a tenant, they want shelter, maintenance, not to have to pay property taxes directly; in the case of a residential Internet, to take bits from their CPE to anywhere else in the world.
•Despite previous comments, one cannot just make unauthorized alterations to the prem/network (can't just start knocking down walls or running your own cable/fiber/whatever) (if it is indeed true that the law in that jurisdiction confers ownership, that's the peak of insanity because that's the difference between ownership and not ownership: dictating, within building codes, what is done with the property).
•Tenant signs a lease, Internet user (electronically more or less) signs a terms of service/acceptable use policy.
The comparison is actually quite apt.
Now...that out of the way, a much better debate would be how the ISPs justify sucking additional money out of entities (businesses) for providing what is essentially the same service. What is this extra $20 or whatever per month used for? Not actually owning a network, I'd have to say, bupkis. But again, that's me not owning or operating a network; those that do may have something more to say on that.
--
English is a difficult enough language to interpret correctly when its rules are followed, let alone when a writer chooses not to follow those rules.
Jeopardy! replies REALLY suck! |
|
 bentand IngaPremium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
 ·Comcast
| said by rchandra:...a much better debate would be how the ISPs justify sucking additional money out of entities (businesses) for providing what is essentially the same service. What is this extra $20 or whatever per month used for? Not actually owning a network, I'd have to say, bupkis. But again, that's me not owning or operating a network; those that do may have something more to say on that. SLA. Response time of technicians. With a residential connection, if it goes down, it gets fixed whenever they get around to it. With a business connection, you get a SLA that guarantees both up-time and technical service response time. Well worth the extra money if your income depends on your connection.
--
Greedy Old Pigs v. The Donkey Show |
|
