Webmaster forum - Death of dial-up in UK

Author

Death of dial-up in UK

Matt Probert

2007-02-20, 6:17 pm

Due to circumstances beyond my control, I was in a computer shop at
the weekend, and it appears that most if not all mainstream
high-street manufacturers are now excluding modems from new desktop
PCs, the feeling being that everyone uses or will use broadband in the
UK.

Matt

--
Documenting the banal to the bizarre
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com

Gwin

2007-02-20, 6:17 pm

On Feb 20, 10:19 am, comme...@probertencyclopaedia.com (Matt Probert)
wrote:
> Due to circumstances beyond my control, I was in a computer shop at
> the weekend, and it appears that most if not all mainstream
> high-street manufacturers are now excluding modems from new desktop
> PCs, the feeling being that everyone uses or will use broadband in the
> UK.
>
> Matt

makes sense.
dialup sucks at it's best.
why give away unused modems? ;)

Cynode

2007-02-20, 6:17 pm

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 18:19:31 GMT, comments@probertencyclopaedia.com
(Matt Probert) wrote:

>Due to circumstances beyond my control, I was in a computer shop at
>the weekend, and it appears that most if not all mainstream
>high-street manufacturers are now excluding modems from new desktop
>PCs, the feeling being that everyone uses or will use broadband in the
>UK.
>
>Matt

dialup modems have a place in my heart right next to the floppy drive
=P

I know a few people here (usa) still using dialup, especially people
with one computer. having 4 desktops and a wireless laptop in my house
dialup was waaaay out of the question.

--
If it keeps up, man will atrophy all his limbs but the push-button finger.
~Frank Lloyd Wright - www.cynode.com | (NSFW) www.cynbabes.com (NWS)

DoobieDo

2007-02-20, 6:17 pm

Fat Sam

2007-02-20, 6:17 pm

Gwin wrote:
> On Feb 20, 10:19 am, comme...@probertencyclopaedia.com (Matt Probert)
> wrote:
>
> makes sense.
> dialup sucks at it's best.
> why give away unused modems? ;)

Errr, because not everybody is geographically privelleged enough to live in
a broadband enabled area perhaps?
Are the store also going to stop advertising their computers as being
*internet ready* ?

Gwin

2007-02-20, 6:17 pm

On Feb 20, 11:27 am, "Fat Sam" <samandjanetk...@tessco.net> wrote:
> Gwin wrote:
>
>
>
> Errr, because not everybody is geographically privelleged enough to live in
> a broadband enabled area perhaps?
> Are the store also going to stop advertising their computers as being
> *internet ready* ?

yea, right ;)

Rik

2007-02-20, 6:17 pm

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:19:31 +0100, Matt Probert
<comments@probertencyclopaedia.com> wrote:

> Due to circumstances beyond my control, I was in a computer shop at
> the weekend, and it appears that most if not all mainstream
> high-street manufacturers are now excluding modems from new desktop
> PCs, the feeling being that everyone uses or will use broadband in the
> UK.

Hmmmz, I still have a dail-up account & modem, 'just in case'. I'd hate to
lose internet connection, and possibly work, because of some malfunction
of the current provider.
--
Rik Wasmus

(PeteCresswell)

2007-02-20, 6:17 pm

Per Cynode:
>I know a few people here (usa) still using dialup, especially people
>with one computer.

And those that travel....
--
PeteCresswell

Cynode

2007-02-20, 6:17 pm

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:27:34 GMT, "Fat Sam"
<samandjanetknox@tessco.net> wrote:

>Are the store also going to stop advertising their computers as being
>*internet ready* ?

They should start labeling the customers as "internet ready" not the
computers =P

it would be like a drivers license for the infomation super highway.

--
If it keeps up, man will atrophy all his limbs but the push-button finger.
~Frank Lloyd Wright - www.cynode.com | (NSFW) www.cynbabes.com (NWS)

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2007-02-20, 6:17 pm

Cynode wrote:

> I know a few people here (usa) still using dialup, especially people
> with one computer.

...and since the USA has a lot more rural area than the UK ... there are
places in the USA where there will probably never be any broadband other
than expensive satellite services, at least with currently-known
technologies. There are some places so remote that even a dialup
connection is sketchy. Picture a ranch in the middle of Wyoming.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

Cynode

2007-02-20, 6:17 pm

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 15:12:03 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid>
wrote:

>Per Cynode:
>
>And those that travel....

I'm traveling all next week, got a room with wireless for my laptop =)
while on the drive though... =)

--
If it keeps up, man will atrophy all his limbs but the push-button finger.
~Frank Lloyd Wright - www.cynode.com | (NSFW) www.cynbabes.com (NWS)

Heidi

2007-02-20, 10:17 pm

Cynode wrote:
: dialup modems have a place in my heart right next to the floppy drive
: =P

0_0.... I have a floppy... okay so I added it on myself but... :p

Kim André Akerø

2007-02-20, 10:17 pm

Matt Probert wrote:

> Due to circumstances beyond my control, I was in a computer shop at
> the weekend, and it appears that most if not all mainstream
> high-street manufacturers are now excluding modems from new desktop
> PCs, the feeling being that everyone uses or will use broadband in the
> UK.

Agreed. Although I've never had the use for it myself, they should at
least offer it as an option. After all, ISDN cards and internal modems
aren't that expensive nowadays.

--
Kim André Akerø
- kimandre@NOSPAMbetadome.com
(remove NOSPAM to contact me directly)

Blinky the Shark

2007-02-21, 3:16 am

Cynode wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:27:34 GMT, "Fat Sam"
><samandjanetknox@tessco.net> wrote:
>
>
> They should start labeling the customers as "internet ready" not the
> computers =P
>
> it would be like a drivers license for the infomation super highway.

I suppose the Learner's Permit would be analogous to AOL.

Except:

1. Real Learner's Permits require an adult be next to the user.

2. For real Learner's Permits, the upgrade path is obvious.

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Blinky the Shark

2007-02-21, 3:16 am

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Cynode wrote:
>
>
> ..and since the USA has a lot more rural area than the UK ... there are
> places in the USA where there will probably never be any broadband other
> than expensive satellite services, at least with currently-known
> technologies. There are some places so remote that even a dialup
> connection is sketchy. Picture a ranch in the middle of Wyoming.

A while back, I was looking for a comparison of the size of the two.
Within something like a couple hundred square miles (according to the
resource I was using), the UK is the size of New York and Pennslyvania.
I was surprised to find a combination of two of the 50 states that came
that close. I realize size isn't the same as rurality, but it takes a
lot of the former to contain a lot of the latter, so it's not like
they're not related.

I use dialup. I live in Los Angeles.

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Brian Cryer

2007-02-21, 6:16 am

"Matt Probert" <comments@probertencyclopaedia.com> wrote in message
news:45db3b32.9282046@news.freenetname.co.uk...
> Due to circumstances beyond my control, I was in a computer shop at
> the weekend, and it appears that most if not all mainstream
> high-street manufacturers are now excluding modems from new desktop
> PCs, the feeling being that everyone uses or will use broadband in the
> UK.

It can be quite relaxing at times browsing in a computer shop (and if you
are anything like me then you are thinking I could buy this stuff much
cheaper on line ...)

I think all but one of the pcs in my house has a modem installed. I do still
use the modem on one of the pcs on a semi-regular basis, but otherwise its
broadband all the way. I've thought for years that it was daft for pcs to be
supplied with a modem as standard. They are so cheap to buy if someone needs
one, and given (certainly in the UK) that the majority of people are now on
broadband it makes little sense to include a modem as standard.

I don't think it spells the death of dial-up, just a reflection that dial-up
is diminishing.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian

Andy Dingley

2007-02-21, 6:16 am

On 20 Feb, 20:50, Cynode <a...@cynode.com> wrote:

> it would be like a drivers license for the infomation super highway.

Search on "ECDL"

(Nice idea, pitiful implementation....)

Toby A Inkster

2007-02-21, 6:16 am

Fat Sam wrote:
> Gwin wrote:
>
>
> Errr, because not everybody is geographically privelleged enough to live in
> a broadband enabled area perhaps?

In which case, internal hardware modems (not the cheapo software modems
that are often bundled with computers) start from Â£11.09 at Maplin. For
those allergic to the internals of their computers, USB modems start at
Â£24.99.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux

* = I'm getting there!

Fat Sam

2007-02-21, 6:17 pm

Toby A Inkster wrote:
> Fat Sam wrote:
>
> In which case, internal hardware modems (not the cheapo software
> modems that are often bundled with computers) start from £11.09 at
> Maplin. For those allergic to the internals of their computers, USB
> modems start at £24.99.

Yes, I agree that's a far superior route for dialup access, however....
If the shops are still selling computers as *internet ready* (which my local
PCworld are on computers without internal modems, as Matt described) then
they'r clearly misrepresenting the product.
That contravenes the sale of goods act.
Imagine some old biddy or codger, someone like my dad, decides they want to
buy a computer so they can email their family overseas, have a look on that
internet thing, maybe trace a family tree, join a few egimental associations
and subscribe to their forusm etc.
Now he would walk into that store and see the words *internet ready*, and
quite rightly asume he could just take it home, plug it into his phone line,
and after registering some details go online and do all the things he had
hoped to do.
The store would be guilty of misrepresenting a product and gaining a profit
through deception.
And knowing PCWorlds MO, they would refuse a refund too.

Dylan Parry

2007-02-21, 6:17 pm

Fat Sam wrote:

> If the shops are still selling computers as *internet ready* (which my local
> PCworld are on computers without internal modems, as Matt described) then
> they'r clearly misrepresenting the product.
> That contravenes the sale of goods act.

It really annoys me that companies market things like the above. When
they say "Internet Ready" all they mean is that it has Internet Explorer
installed (which is bloody obvious anyway) and that they have a spare
LAN port at the back. Occasionally they may even mean that there is a
wireless card in the machine (wow!)

What they don't mean, and this is what I would expect from an "Internet
Ready" machine, is that you have built-in modems from ADSL, Cable and
dial-up. They also don't mean that you can just plug it in and expect to
be online without getting an account from an ISP first.

I really wish they would stop advertising products like this. They
should tell the customer *clearly* that they will need additional
hardware and an ISP account, and that if they want broadband they are
going to have to investigate which services are available in their local
area and what they need to do to access them.

--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk

Programming, n: A pastime similar to banging one's head
against a wall, but with fewer opportunities for reward.

Andy Dingley

2007-02-21, 6:17 pm

On 21 Feb, 12:29, "Fat Sam" <samandjanetk...@tessco.net> wrote:

> If the shops are still selling computers as *internet ready* (which my local
> PCworld are on computers without internal modems, as Matt described) then they'r clearly misrepresenting the product.

The _product_ is the thing in the box, no more. That much is "internet
ready" i.e. there's nothing included that is "internet unready". You
need to plug it into the mains too, but you'd hardly suggest they
should bundle a generator. The term itself is vague and undefined, so
there's no possiblity of a viable mis-representation action.

A competent shop should advise the customer that they might need a
modem, but that's a failure of the shop, not the product (and shop
competency isn't a legal requirement). As most users have no use for a
dial-up modem anyway, it's more likely that it's a reasonable
complaint of over-selling if they _did_ still force customers to buy
bundled modems.

CJM

2007-02-21, 6:17 pm

"Fat Sam" <samandjanetknox@tessco.net> wrote in message
news:FWWCh.31897$Fm2.17183@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...

> Yes, I agree that's a far superior route for dialup access, however....
> If the shops are still selling computers as *internet ready* (which my
> local PCworld are on computers without internal modems, as Matt described)
> then they'r clearly misrepresenting the product.
> That contravenes the sale of goods act.

Complete crap and you know it. The 'internet ready' monika is crap too. And
it doesn't contravene the Sale of Goods (or any other) Act. If you seriously
thought it did, you would complain to Trading Standards - but you haven't,
have you?

A dial-up modem is not required for internet access. Either a dial-up modem
OR an ADSL modem OR a network card/ADSL Router OR cable modem OR a.n.other
device is required to be able to connect to the internet.

> Imagine some old biddy or codger, someone like my dad, decides they want
> to buy a computer so they can email their family overseas, have a look on
> that internet thing, maybe trace a family tree, join a few egimental
> associations and subscribe to their forusm etc.

Cool... sounds like a reasonable aspiration.

> Now he would walk into that store and see the words *internet ready*, and
> quite rightly asume he could just take it home, plug it into his phone
> line, and after registering some details go online and do all the things
> he had hoped to do.

They would be a fool to *wrongly* assume that they can simply plug it into a
phone line. You've already identified that registration with some sort of
provider would be required for internet access, therefore strictly speaking
a PC with a modem is *not* internet ready.

They would also be foolish to spend £££ on a PC without checking that it was
appropriate for them. A quick conversation with the sales staff and/or some
research prior to purchasing (one of the many buyers guides that are
available online perhaps) would have revealed the problem. If the buyer in
question lacks the experience to identify if a PC is suitable for their
needs, they could enrol on one of the many free adult education courses that
are currently being funded to get the old & the poor online.

Ultimately, ignorance is not an excuse.

> The store would be guilty of misrepresenting a product and gaining a
> profit through deception.

Wrongly accusing a store of breaking the law, could be considered libel,
too.

> And knowing PCWorlds MO, they would refuse a refund too.

Knowing PC Worlds MO, they would probably wouldn't miss the opportunity to
sell the buyer an over-price retail modem with lots of crap they don't need,
then charge them again to fit it. However, it's not just PC World that we
are talking about here.

It also annoys me that you mistakenly assume that everyone has a landline to
access the web. Why? I know a couple of people with cable subscriptions. One
with a cable phone package and one who simply uses the ridiculous number of
free minutes he get with his mobile package. Imagine their dismay when the
'internet ready' PC they buy from you has a dial-up modem but no
ethernet/USB ports for their cable modem!

If your assertion is that the suggestion that a new PC is 'internet ready'
is simplistic and potentially confusing, then I'm in agreement. But if you
are insisting that a PC needs a dial-up modem to be considered 'internet
ready' and thus all new PCs should have one, then I'm definitely not in
agreement.

CJM

Toby A Inkster

2007-02-21, 6:17 pm

Fat Sam wrote:

> If the shops are still selling computers as *internet ready* (which my local
> PCworld are on computers without internal modems, as Matt described) then
> they'r clearly misrepresenting the product.

It could be argued that selling a PC with a modem in as "internet ready"
is just as bad.

If I were to have bought such a computer when I was at University, and
taken it back to my halls of residence, then I wouldn't have been able to
connect to the Internet. My halls had ethernet sockets, but no analogue
phone lines.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux

* = I'm getting there!

CJM

2007-02-21, 6:17 pm

"Andy Dingley" <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote in message
news:1172061866.253997.24870@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> You need to plug it into the mains too, but you'd hardly suggest they
> should bundle a generator.

lol

>
> A competent shop

Perhaps not PC World then...

> should advise the customer that they might need a
> modem, but that's a failure of the shop, not the product (and shop
> competency isn't a legal requirement).

Dylan Parry

2007-02-21, 6:17 pm

Toby A Inkster wrote:

> My halls had ethernet sockets, but no analogue phone lines.

Despite telling us that they did, my Uni halls had SFA with regards
Internet access. I truly despised the people who ran them, especially
with their views that environmental health was not an issue - that is
until I threatened to give them a call <g>

--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk

Programming, n: A pastime similar to banging one's head
against a wall, but with fewer opportunities for reward.

Chris F.A. Johnson

2007-02-21, 6:17 pm

On 2007-02-21, Brian Cryer wrote:
> "Matt Probert" <comments@probertencyclopaedia.com> wrote in message
> news:45db3b32.9282046@news.freenetname.co.uk...
....[color=darkred]
> I don't think it spells the death of dial-up, just a reflection that dial-up
> is diminishing.

Or that fewer people want a crippled "winmodem".

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

SpaceGirl

2007-02-21, 6:17 pm

On Feb 21, 12:29 pm, "Fat Sam" <samandjanetk...@tessco.net> wrote:
> Toby A Inkster wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Yes, I agree that's a far superior route for dialup access, however....
> If the shops are still selling computers as *internet ready* (which my lo=
cal
> PCworld are on computers without internal modems, as Matt described) then
> they'r clearly misrepresenting the product.
> That contravenes the sale of goods act.
> Imagine some old biddy or codger, someone like my dad, decides they want =
to
> buy a computer so they can email their family overseas, have a look on th=
at
> internet thing, maybe trace a family tree, join a few egimental associati=
ons
> and subscribe to their forusm etc.
> Now he would walk into that store and see the words *internet ready*, and
> quite rightly asume he could just take it home, plug it into his phone li=
ne,
> and after registering some details go online and do all the things he had
> hoped to do.
> The store would be guilty of misrepresenting a product and gaining a prof=
it
> through deception.
> And knowing PCWorlds MO, they would refuse a refund too.

Nah. Imagine you know nothing about the Internet. Would you know that
you need a phone line? You don't get a phone line with a computer
either. Many dial-up DSL services supply a modem anyway.

SpaceGirl

2007-02-21, 6:17 pm

On Feb 20, 8:50 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m...@example.invalid> wrote:
> Cynode wrote:
>
> ..and since the USA has a lot more rural area than the UK ... there are
> places in the USA where there will probably never be any broadband other
> than expensive satellite services, at least with currently-known
> technologies. There are some places so remote that even a dialup
> connection is sketchy. Picture a ranch in the middle of Wyoming.
>
> --
> -bts
> -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

But I would assume still cell coverage... so internet over cell...
Expensive yes, but it's still the Internet.

SpaceGirl

2007-02-21, 6:17 pm

On Feb 20, 8:00 pm, Rik <luiheidsgoe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:19:31 +0100, Matt Probert
>
> <comme...@probertencyclopaedia.com> wrote:
>
> Hmmmz, I still have a dail-up account & modem, 'just in case'. I'd hate to
> lose internet connection, and possibly work, because of some malfunction
> of the current provider.
> --
> Rik Wasmus

I don't. If I loose my cable, my mobile phone has a 384kbps connection
over 3G... or I can hop on one of the countless unprotected wifi
hotspots I can see from my apartment :P

Blinky the Shark

2007-02-21, 6:17 pm

CJM wrote:

> Complete crap and you know it. The 'internet ready' monika is crap too. And

Hey, I remember "monika". She used to post here...

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Blinky the Shark

2007-02-21, 6:17 pm

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2007-02-21, Brian Cryer wrote:
> ...
>
> Or that fewer people want a crippled "winmodem".

They should work well with crippled Windows (Vista).

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Fat Sam

2007-02-23, 3:39 am

CJM wrote:
> "Fat Sam" <samandjanetknox@tessco.net> wrote in message
> news:FWWCh.31897$Fm2.17183@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
>
>
> Complete crap and you know it. The 'internet ready' monika is crap
> too. And it doesn't contravene the Sale of Goods (or any other) Act.
> If you seriously thought it did, you would complain to Trading
> Standards - but you haven't, have you?

I don't complain to trading standards because I'm not in the habot of buying
off-the-shelf computers.

> A dial-up modem is not required for internet access. Either a dial-up
> modem OR an ADSL modem OR a network card/ADSL Router OR cable modem
> OR a.n.other device is required to be able to connect to the internet.

Can't agree with you there I'm afraid.
ADSL modem, network cards, routers etc etc are only of any use if a
compatible service is available to you.
The vast majority of the population (and I mean seriously vast majority)
have access to a telephone line.
Therefore, a dial-up modem is the absolute basic requirement to access the
internet.
It is the common denominator if you like.
So to market a computer as being internet ready to the masses, when it
doesn't even contain the relevant hardware to fulfill this promise is fraud.
Plain and simple.

Look at it this way.
If you bought a Teletext TV because you felt nostalgic for the 1980's and
wanted to play Bamboozle on Ceefax, then got it home to discover you needed
to buy an extra plug in box, or have an extra circuit board fitted to it in
order to receive teletext, you would be justified in feeling a bit miffed.

>
> Cool... sounds like a reasonable aspiration.
>
>
> They would be a fool to *wrongly* assume that they can simply plug it
> into a phone line. You've already identified that registration with
> some sort of provider would be required for internet access,
> therefore strictly speaking a PC with a modem is *not* internet ready.

It's more internet ready that a computer without one, and that's the whole
thrust of my point.

> They would also be foolish to spend £££ on a PC without checking that
> it was appropriate for them.

But that's exactly what a lot of rather afluent wrinklies tend to do.

> A quick conversation with the sales
> staff

I wouldn't trust a PCWorld salepersons words when he's in sales-pitch mode
any more than I could spit the chair I'm sitting on.

> and/or some research prior to purchasing (one of the many
> buyers guides that are available online perhaps) would have revealed
> the problem. If the buyer in question lacks the experience to
> identify if a PC is suitable for their needs, they could enrol on one
> of the many free adult education courses that are currently being
> funded to get the old & the poor online.

An excellent suggestion.

> It also annoys me that you mistakenly assume that everyone has a
> landline to access the web. Why?

You misunderstand me. and you're getting my statement all mixed-up and
upside down.
My point isn't that everyone has landline access to the web.
My point is that dialup access is the great common denominator.
There are more people in the UK with access to a telephone line socket than
there are people with access to all kinds of broadband combined.
The folks who are on broadband could, if they decided to give up broadband
(god knows why) still mostly connect to the net via dialup using an ordinary
telephone socket.
That makes dialup the common basic method of accessing the internet.
Therefore, it is wrong to advertise a computer as being capable to access
the internet without providing the hardware to use the most basic common
denominator connection method.

> I know a couple of people with cable
> subscriptions. One with a cable phone package and one who simply uses
> the ridiculous number of free minutes he get with his mobile package.
> Imagine their dismay when the 'internet ready' PC they buy from you
> has a dial-up modem but no ethernet/USB ports for their cable modem!

But I bet they have a phone socket on their walls, so they could still get
online if they wanted to.

> If your assertion is that the suggestion that a new PC is 'internet
> ready' is simplistic and potentially confusing, then I'm in
> agreement. But if you are insisting that a PC needs a dial-up modem
> to be considered 'internet ready' and thus all new PCs should have
> one, then I'm definitely not in agreement.

So do you suggest PCs should be sold with no modem at all, or they should
all be fitted with an ADSL modem, or that the buyer should have a choice of
what networking device they want fitted at the time of purchase?
Actually that last one's not such a bad idea come to think of it.

MGW

2007-02-23, 3:39 am

On 21 Feb 2007 07:39:48 -0800, "SpaceGirl"
<nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> scrawled:

> On Feb 20, 8:50 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
> <a.nony.m...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
> But I would assume still cell coverage... so internet over cell...
> Expensive yes, but it's still the Internet.

You can't assume cell coverage in the middle of Wyoming, the coast of
Maine, Winslow AZ, or a bunch of other places in the rural parts of
the U.S.

--
MGW
I have yet to see a problem, however complicated, which when you looked at
it in the right way, did not become still more complicated. ~ Poul Anderson

al jones

2007-02-23, 3:39 am

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:29:48 -0500, MGW wrote:

> On 21 Feb 2007 07:39:48 -0800, "SpaceGirl"
> <nothespacegirlspam@subhuman.net> scrawled:
>
>
> You can't assume cell coverage in the middle of Wyoming, the coast of
> Maine, Winslow AZ, or a bunch of other places in the rural parts of
> the U.S.

Hell, I'm 60 miles outside of Houston! I have good cell reseption up to
about a mile from home - at home I have zilch!!! No, maybe my house is in
the middle of fenced range and it's either cows or grass farms for several
miles in all directions but you'd expect being outside of a large metro
area I'd at least get some cell coverage. So, no, you can't assume cell
coverage even in some areas around *BIG* cities!

//al

Toby A Inkster

2007-02-23, 6:16 am

al jones wrote:

> So, no, you can't assume cell coverage even in some areas around *BIG*
> cities!

Even *in* big cities there are occasional black spots caused by large
buildings.

FWIW, I have full coverage here at my desk, and am (according to a mile
stone[1] just down the road) 49 miles from Cornhill[2].

____
1. You can just about see the mile stone in this picture:
http://www.oldenyoungbooks.co.uk/index%20where.htm
See the hanging sign? Diagonally down and to the right is a window;
to the right of that is the mile stone. You can't read it though.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornhill%2C_City_of_London

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Geek of ~ HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python*/Apache/Linux

* = I'm getting there!

The little lost angel

2007-02-23, 6:16 am

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:59:35 -0000, "CJM"
<cjmnews04@REMOVEMEyahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>They would also be foolish to spend £££ on a PC without checking that it was
>appropriate
<snip>
>one of the many buyers guides that are
>available online perhaps) would have revealed the problem.

Note said "foolish" person would need a computer and an internet
connection to check said buyers guide that are available ONLINE... :P

--
A Lost Angel, fallen from heaven
Lost in dreams, Lost in aspirations,
Lost to the world, Lost to myself

CJM

2007-02-23, 6:17 pm

"The little lost angel" <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote in
message news:45dec8d2.236549843@news.singnet.com.sg...
>
> Note said "foolish" person would need a computer and an internet
> connection to check said buyers guide that are available ONLINE... :P
>

Friends, family, local library or internet kiosk if necessary...

But there are plenty of magazines available also.

Fat Sam

2007-02-23, 6:17 pm

CJM wrote:
> "The little lost angel" <a?n?g?e?l@lovergirl.lrigrevol.moc.com> wrote
> in message news:45dec8d2.236549843@news.singnet.com.sg...
>
> Friends, family, local library or internet kiosk if necessary...
>
> But there are plenty of magazines available also.

It's unreasonable to expect a naieve buyer to have to sift through reams of
reviews and reports (most of which are written in a very
non-wrinkly-friendly way with technical jargon that inflates he writers
ego), just so they can tell which shops are telling lies or being economical
with the truth.
Especially when there are already legal measures in place in this country
that obligate vendors to be honest and truthfull when describing their
products.

The bottom line is, a buyer (whether experienced or not) should be able to
trust the descriptions that a shop applies to its products.
Sadly with shops like PCWorld, this isn't the case, and they get away with
it.

In addition to this, a buyer (whether experienced or not) should be able to
ask the sales staff a question and expect a reasonable answer, without that
salesperson interpreting their question as an opportunity to start adding
extra items to the final bill.
Sadly with shops like PCWorld, this isn't the case, and they get away with
it.

CJM

2007-02-26, 6:19 pm

"Fat Sam" <samandjanetknox@tessco.net> wrote in message
news:qIDDh.19248$tz6.12713@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> It's unreasonable to expect a naieve buyer to have to sift through reams
> of reviews and reports (most of which are written in a very
> non-wrinkly-friendly way with technical jargon that inflates he writers
> ego), just so they can tell which shops are telling lies or being
> economical with the truth.

It's unreasonable for the buyer to be responsible for what they are buying?

And unusual position.

> Especially when there are already legal measures in place in this country
> that obligate vendors to be honest and truthfull when describing their
> products.
>

If you feel any trader is really breaking the law, I would say it's your
duty as a citizen to report them to Trading Standards...

But we both know that it is probably not the case.

> The bottom line is, a buyer (whether experienced or not) should be able to
> trust the descriptions that a shop applies to its products.
> Sadly with shops like PCWorld, this isn't the case, and they get away with
> it.

So your real problem is with the way retailers describe their products;
specifically when claiming that a PC is 'internet ready' when it is rarely
that simple. Fair point, but it has nothing to do with whether dial-up
modems should be included in new PCs as standard.

>
> In addition to this, a buyer (whether experienced or not) should be able
> to ask the sales staff a question and expect a reasonable answer, without
> that salesperson interpreting their question as an opportunity to start
> adding extra items to the final bill.

True.

> Sadly with shops like PCWorld, this isn't the case, and they get away with
> it.

Because we let them. You can't legislate against a retailer trying to sell
as much as they can, but you can make sure you are roughly aware of what you
are buying, and don't accept every sales pitch from retailers.

Consumers have rights. But alongside rights come responsibilities.

If you don't know what you are buying, don't buy.

>

Fat Sam

2007-02-26, 6:19 pm

CJM wrote:
> "Fat Sam" <samandjanetknox@tessco.net> wrote in message
> news:qIDDh.19248$tz6.12713@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>
> It's unreasonable for the buyer to be responsible for what they are
> buying?

No it's not unreasonable for the buyer to be responsible for having a clue
about what they're looking at buying.
But it *is* unreasonable for the seller to employ smoke and mirrors in his
descriptions of the product.

>
> If you feel any trader is really breaking the law, I would say it's
> your duty as a citizen to report them to Trading Standards...
>
> But we both know that it is probably not the case.
>
>
> So your real problem is with the way retailers describe their
> products; specifically when claiming that a PC is 'internet ready'
> when it is rarely that simple.

Absolutely. That's what I've been saying since my first post.

> Fair point, but it has nothing to do
> with whether dial-up modems should be included in new PCs as standard.

I think we've pinpointed the detail upon which our opinions difer.
That's not a bad thing. Debate is good.
I personally see dialup as the conection method that's available to the
highest pecentage of the country if they want it, so to my way of thinking,
it makes logical sense for a dialup modem to be the basic networking
hardware requirement for any computer billed as internet ready.

>
> True.
>
>
> Because we let them. You can't legislate against a retailer trying to
> sell as much as they can, but you can make sure you are roughly aware
> of what you are buying, and don't accept every sales pitch from
> retailers.

But sadly, the majority of wrinklies who have a bob or two to blow on a
computer are of a generation where they still think they can trust the
salespeople in shops, like they used to be able to do in the 1930's or
whenever.
They're the same people who prattle on about being able to leave doors
unlocked, and burglars asking your permission before stealing your wireless
crystal set.
They're prime fodder for these salespeople.

> Consumers have rights. But alongside rights come responsibilities.

Aaah, but alongside the responsibilities held by the consumer, are an equal
set of responsibilities for the retailer.
Just as some consumers shirk these responsibilities, a lot of retailers do
too.

> If you don't know what you are buying, don't buy.

Absolutely. Sterling advice which I couldn't agree more with.
However, and I cite my dad and my aunt as examples, as they have done this
in the past much to my great irritation. Old folks aren't likely to follow
this sage piece of advice.
The amount of times I've had a phone call from my aunt or dad saying "I've
been having problems with my computer lately, so I asked the nice man in PC
World and he told me I needed to fit this widget and install a special
programme that they sell. He was such a nice helpfull young man who really
seemed to know all about computers and it only cost me £75"
I berate them and tell them to phone me BEFORE they go to PCWorld, and not
after they've come back next time, but I know from bitter experience that in
3 months time I'll be receiving the exact same phone call from them again.
My point being that there are some consumers who, nomatter how much you try
to advise them or make them streetwise, will always need protecting from
their own stupidity.