On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 9:05 PM, b_s-wilk wrote:
> Steve, did you find out additional useful tuner specs?
Absolutely none. Zero. Nada. Zilch. There are none readily
available for the end user. A tuner is the unwanted stepchild of the
television industry, required to be in a television for
On Apr 5, 2010, at 8:17 PM, David D Odell wrote:
Why? It's not like they have to keep refilling the line more often.
Hey! Be careful. With Verizon cutting back on new construction Eric
will soon be depending on management thinking annual refills are
essential.
***
phartz...@gmail.com escribió:
It was a long and arduous search that I had to undertake in order to
find a digital TV that had a highly sensitive tuner. I rely upon
over-the-air TV, and there is virtually no information whatsoever from
any TV maker regarding tuner specifications. I really do
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 3:01 AM, t.piwowar wrote:
> Because most of us lead busy lives and we can't hang onto an issue with the
> tenacity of a corporation. Corporations can hire people to lobby full time.
> We have to go to work, take care of the kids, go shopping, do the laundry,
> etc. etc. Thu
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 1:49 AM, b_s-wilk wrote:
> We did find out something to improve the over the air signal--a cheap $29
> DVD recorder with an amazing tuner from Big Lots. Better than the two
> converter boxes we tried, plus DVD! With a cheap home-made antenna,
> http://www.tvantennaplans.com
On Apr 4, 2010, at 7:51 PM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote:
If all too many of us do not feel as I indicated, then how come we,
the people, continue to allow ourselves to be ripped off, decade after
decade after decade?
Because most of us lead busy lives and we can't hang onto an issue
with the te
I am flummoxed. First they promote the over the air digital TV signal and make
you go out and get "converters" so you don't hafta buy a new TV ...then you
find out you only get 2 channels where you live (I have a 30' tower with
uhf/vhf antenna 1h road south of Philadelphia ...no mountains here)
Quoting Stewart Marshall :
It mainly is based on expected usage.
They expect you to use it more so you pay more for it.
My church office uses a 1.5 mps connection. We are not a heavy user
and do not rely on a super high speed connection for our work.
Now if I were a business that required a
I am flummoxed. First they promote the over the air digital TV signal and make
you go out and get "converters" so you don't hafta buy a new TV ...then you
find out you only get 2 channels where you live (I have a 30' tower with
uhf/vhf antenna 1h road south of Philadelphia ...no mountains here)
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 7:09 PM, tjpa wrote:
> On Apr 4, 2010, at 11:44 AM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> I guess you know that only about half of the public in the United
>> States, and perhaps even less than that, agrees with you.
>
> Stop reading those Fox News push polls.
If all too many
It mainly is based on expected usage.
They expect you to use it more so you pay more for it.
My church office uses a 1.5 mps connection. We are not a heavy user
and do not rely on a super high speed connection for our work.
Now if I were a business that required a high speed connection tog e
At least you know how to defend against crocs and skeeters.
Stewart
At 06:08 PM 4/4/2010, you wrote:
On Apr 4, 2010, at 2:52 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote:
Only things you have to fight off are Teapartiers and termites.
What's the difference?
On Apr 4, 2010, at 2:52 PM, Rev. Stewart Marshall wrote:
Only things you have to fight off are Teapartiers and termites.
What's the difference?
*
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
*
On Apr 4, 2010, at 11:44 AM, phartz...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess you know that only about half of the public in the United
States, and perhaps even less than that, agrees with you.
Stop reading those Fox News push polls.
*
On Apr 4, 2010, at 6:49 PM, b_s-wilk wrote:
In many places you can get 1Mbps for 1 euro. Here it's insanely
higher, and not available many places, especially nowhere like here.
Just keep repeating the neocon mantra: we are the USA, the best of all
possible countries. Love it or leave it.
Quoting "t.piwowar" :
The corporations invented the idea that bandwidth was a scarce resource
to be sold to the public drop by drop. They started to throttle
services like BitTorrent and block services like Skype. Suddenly the
the wide open cables lost their ability to move our data unimpeded
un
WOW!
That is so absurdly expensive. The US is failing us. Broadband
monopolies better be regulated soon, otherwise we're going to sink lower
and lower.
In many places you can get 1Mbps for 1 euro. Here it's insanely higher,
and not available many places, especially nowhere like here.
BUMME
Not even close.
Only things you have to fight off are Teapartiers and termites.
Stewart
At 09:17 AM 4/4/2010, you wrote:
On Apr 3, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Stewart Marshall wrote:
There are a number of smaller towns in this area, 10K population or
so that have varying degrees of service. Most of t
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 10:47 AM, t.piwowar wrote:
> You bet we need more regulation. And more competition. The two do not oppose
> one another. When the oligarchs have us by the throats the only way to get
> competition is via regulation.
I guess you know that only about half of the public in
_
From: b_s-wilk
To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Sent: Sat, April 3, 2010 11:44:19 PM
Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Broadband Speeds Map
> Can't speak for others, but I am on an account with Rogers Cable Systems in
> Ontario that gets me consistently up to 25 Mbps speed. And there is an
On Apr 3, 2010, at 11:02 AM, Stewart Marshall wrote:
Less competition more regulation!
Today's Morning Edition had a report on broadband regulation...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125554738
Amid all the brouhaha about neocons battling to get the government off
our bac
On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 10:17 AM, t.piwowar wrote:
> On Apr 3, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Stewart Marshall wrote:
>
>> There are a number of smaller towns in this area, 10K population or so
>> that have varying degrees of service. Most of them have VOIP available.
>>
>
> But isn't your area somewhere in t
On Apr 3, 2010, at 6:42 PM, Stewart Marshall wrote:
There are a number of smaller towns in this area, 10K population or
so that have varying degrees of service. Most of them have VOIP
available.
But isn't your area somewhere in the middle of the Okefenokee Swamp? I
don't think Eric and hi
most connected
country on earth, having a slower rate that GB? Or Germany's rate as slower
than that of the US? "Average" is only the partial story...
--- On Sat, 4/3/10, tjpa wrote:
From: tjpa
Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Broadband Speeds Map
To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@listserv.aol.com
Date: Saturd
Right now it cold be Canadian or US. They are almost on par.
Stewart
At 10:44 PM 4/3/2010, you wrote:
Can't speak for others, but I am on an account with Rogers Cable
Systems in Ontario that gets me consistently up to 25 Mbps speed.
And there is an account type that is one higher than that w
Can't speak for others, but I am on an account with Rogers Cable Systems in
Ontario that gets me consistently up to 25 Mbps speed. And there is an account
type that is one higher than that which tops out at 50. Mind you it doesn't;t
come cheap but there it is.
How much does Rogers Cable charg
So things in the USA are really much worse than the map would
indicate. You are not making us feel better.
Farthest thing from my mind (to not make you feel better).
I'm saying that the data used to create that map is insufficiently
granular, that's all. I wouldn't be privy to the methodology
In municipalities we are well served by high speed Net access.
It is when you get on the fringes of these municipalities and into
the suburban areas that there is a stark difference.
There are a number of smaller towns in this area, 10K population or
so that have varying degrees of service.
On Apr 3, 2010, at 4:12 PM, Eric S. Sande wrote:
The speeds on the map are somewhat misleading. The FCC says that
anything over 768 kBPS qualifies as "broadband." Nothing in that says
anything about symmetric or asymmetic (and they are setting the bar
too low).
So things in the USA are really
For those who say that USA has rotten broadband speeds because we
have such low population density, why is Canada ahead of US?
A variety of reasons. The real question is how you define broadband.
The speeds on the map are somewhat misleading. The FCC says that
anything over 768 kBPS qualifies
On Apr 3, 2010, at 1:45 PM, mike wrote:
The day must end in Y, Tom is blaming the neomicrosofticons again.
And the neomicrosofticons continue to insist that our slow connections
are just fine and that any news of better service in other countries
must be some statistical aberration. The onl
The Amen Corner checking in.
Friends on the Lower North Shore of Quebec have neither dependable dial-up,
nor hydro.
- Original Message -
From: "Rev. Stewart Marshall"
To:
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Broadband Speeds Map
Absolutely.
First you must live in a Rogers Cable served area.
Stewart
At 12:51 PM 4/3/2010, you wrote:
Can't speak for others, but I am on an account with Rogers Cable
Systems in Ontario that gets me consistently up to 25 Mbps speed.
And there is an account type that is one higher than that which tops
TERGUYS-L@listserv.aol.com
> Sent: Sat, April 3, 2010 1:32:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Broadband Speeds Map
>
> On Apr 3, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Steve at Verizon wrote:
> > Technically Canada has a low population density when you divide its
> population by the size of the country.
cable, not FIOS.
Michael
From: tjpa
To: COMPUTERGUYS-L@listserv.aol.com
Sent: Sat, April 3, 2010 1:32:14 PM
Subject: Re: [CGUYS] Broadband Speeds Map
On Apr 3, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Steve at Verizon wrote:
> Technically Canada has a low population density wh
Absolutely.
My in-laws live 300+ miles north of the border.
The services they can get and the cost are far, far different than
what is offered in the lower half of the province.
The farther you get from the border the more remote and rugged it
gets. Leave any of the population dense sites a
The day must end in Y, Tom is blaming the neomicrosofticons again.
On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 7:48 AM, t.piwowar wrote:
>
>
> The real reason is lack of competition and 8 years of neocon rule resulting
> in no national broadband policy.
>
>
> *
On Apr 3, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Steve at Verizon wrote:
Technically Canada has a low population density when you divide its
population by the size of the country. However, it is highly
concentrated. Over three quarters of its population lives within 90
miles of the US border. Also see this map
On Apr 3, 2010, at 11:40 AM, Stewart Marshall wrote:
I think many of the LCD panels are made there.
But of course, it is LCD that make their broadband so fast. Why did I
not think of that? America needs more LSD right away!
**
Technically Canada has a low population density when you divide its
population by the size of the country. However, it is highly
concentrated. Over three quarters of its population lives within 90
miles of the US border. Also see this map of the distribution.
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/
South Korea is pretty high tech.
I think many of the LCD panels are made there.
Stewart
At 10:26 AM 4/3/2010, you wrote:
> For those who say that USA has rotten broadband speeds because we have
> such low population density, why is Canada ahead of US?
>
> http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2010/0
> For those who say that USA has rotten broadband speeds because we have
> such low population density, why is Canada ahead of US?
>
> http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2010/03/tech/map.broadband.speeds/index.html
Interesting factoid: Unless I missed someone, South Korea is the fastest in the
world
Less competition more regulation!
Stewart
At 09:48 AM 4/3/2010, you wrote:
For those who say that USA has rotten broadband speeds because we have
such low population density, why is Canada ahead of US?
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2010/03/tech/map.broadband.speeds/index.html
The real reaso
This might be of interest here.
http://www.telecomcareers.net/SMF/doc_hitechemploy.asp?SMContentIndex=0&SMContentSet=0
* ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <==
* ==> the body of an email &
>Not just limiting bandwith, but packet shaping. Here comes the future of
>the internet thanks to companies like AT&T and Comcast and senators like Ted
>'tubes' Stevens and Hatch.
Looks like Stevens will soon be going down the tubes himself.
Have people seen the recent stories in the NYT about C
At 11:54 PM -0400 10/24/07, Eric S. Sande wrote:
[snip]
"DSL", as it is commonly known, is a transitional product.
FiOS is where it's at. The basic strategy is to deliver very high
bandwidth over a next generation network at prices that make cable
look even more expensive than it already is.
Not just limiting bandwith, but packet shaping. Here comes the future of
the internet thanks to companies like AT&T and Comcast and senators like Ted
'tubes' Stevens and Hatch.
Gah.
Mike
On 10/24/07, Rev. Stewart Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Also I believe there is no limit place
I believe that T1 lines come standard with a static IP number. As
you state below their up speed is as much as their down speed. (Most
home DSL's and Cable setups have a high down speed, but a much
slower up speed.
Depends on how they are configured. Most DS1s (don't say T1) are
channelized
Some other differences I think are associated with a T1 line.
I believe that T1 lines come standard with a static IP number. As
you state below their up speed is as much as their down speed. (Most
home DSL's and Cable setups have a high down speed, but a much slower up speed)
Also I believe
Concur. Most T1 lines come with service level agreements on the
order of 99+% uptime guaranteed. Imagine getting that from cable. ;^)
That is why DSL is so much better than cable.
Just a brief clarification. "DSL" is a term that's used like "Kleenex."
A T1, or what is more accurately refe
Sometimes. DSL in AZ is worse then the software I use on my sony mp3
player. They have zero support here for anything above 6mbit and Qwest
customer service/support is nonexistent. I had cable for almost five years,
it might have been down twice, several times they increased my speed with no
pri
>Concur. Most T1 lines come with service level agreements on the
>order of 99+% uptime guaranteed. Imagine getting that from cable. ;^)
That is why DSL is so much better than cable.
* ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE -
At 8:48 AM -0700 10/24/07, mike wrote:
A T1 is a designation of speed, among other things.DSL is a generic term
for technology to move digital signal over analog lines. More and more
connections labeled DSL really aren't. I think the fastest DSL can go and
still be technically DSL is 7mbit
Concur. Most T1 lines come with service level agreements on the
order of 99+% uptime guaranteed. Imagine getting that from cable. ;^)
On Oct 24, 2007, at 6:36 PM, Mason Miller wrote:
It may not be as fast, but it will be more steady and reliable in
most cases. You pay a lot more, but you
It's also 1.5 up and down...and if you get it with Qwest you might just wait
weeks...we have.
Mike
On 10/24/07, Mason Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It may not be as fast, but it will be more steady and reliable in most
> cases. You pay a lot more, but your bandwidth to the other end of t
It may not be as fast, but it will be more steady and reliable in most
cases. You pay a lot more, but your bandwidth to the other end of the
connection is guaranteed, and if it goes down you will see the telco
there in hours, not days. It is a different type of service.
Mason
Jay Montero wr
A T1 is a designation of speed, among other things.DSL is a generic term
for technology to move digital signal over analog lines. More and more
connections labeled DSL really aren't. I think the fastest DSL can go and
still be technically DSL is 7mbit. Someone on the list might have a better
Oh, I see. Still I cannot understand why DSL is so much faster than
T1. My company is looking at getting a T1 line (we cannot get DSL or
cable) and it is going to cost many times what we used to pay for DSL in
our old location yet it will be less than half as fast.
on Tue, 23 Oct 2007, mike
By definition a T1 is only 1.5. If it was more, it wouldn't be a T1.
Mike
On 10/23/07, Jay Montero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I am curious why in this day & age T1 lines max out at 1.5Mbps while DSL
> and cable speeds are many times faster.
>
>
> *
59 matches
Mail list logo
